selection of persistent organic pollutant disposal technology for

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility A

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility

A STAP advisory documentNovember 2011


A STAP advisory documentNovember 2011

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for Global Environment Facility: A STAP advisory document

Prepared on the behalf of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) by

Richard J. Cooke (Man-West Environmental Group Ltd.) and William F. Carroll

AcknowledgmentsSTAP is grateful to the contributors and reviewers who have collaborated with the lead editors and au-thors to produce this GEF advisory document. Special thanks are also due to: the current STAP Member on Chemicals, Hindrik Bouwman and the former one, Bo Wahlstrom; Ron McDowall (The University of Auckland, New Zealand); John Vijgen, Director at the International HCH & Pesticides Association for facilitating feed-back from several technology specialists who helped with the technology specifications list presented in the document; the Basel and Stockholm Convention Secretariats; the GEF Secretariat and the GEF POPs Task Force members, particularly staff of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and the World Bank; and to Lev Neretin, Christine Wellington-Moore and Margarita Dyubanova of the STAP Secretariat.

Design and Layout: Studio Grafik, 10 S King St. Suite C. Leesburg, VA 20175Cover photo: © iStockphoto

DisclaimersThis advisory document builds on the original 2004 STAP study on the selection of POPs disposal technolo-gies for GEF-financed projects, and utilizes experience gained during GEF-4. It is not intended to duplicate or supersede technology evaluations provided by the Basel Convention, Stockholm Convention, or other groups which, along with the evolving technical literature on the subject, should remain the principal source of information for comparative assessment of technology options. It does not seek to exclude or advocate any particular technology, but to lay out guidance on the attributes that technologies should demonstrate when GEF funding is involved.

This work is shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License.

CitationSTAP (The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility). (2011). Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility. A STAP advisory document. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC.

About STAPThe Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel comprises six expert advisers supported by a Secretariat, which are together responsible for connecting the Global Environment Facility to the most up to date, authoritative, and globally representative science.

http://www.unep.org/stap

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility iii

ForewordParties to the Stockholm Convention (the Convention) under Article 6 are obligated to provide for the environmen-tally sound disposal of POPs stockpiles and wastes. Such disposal is fundamental to achieving the Convention’s objective of protecting human health and the environment. The GEF is the Convention’s principal financial mecha-nism in developing countries and CEITs, and has a strong interest in the process of selecting and implementing POPs disposal technologies, in light of the increasing demand for funding of POPs disposal as countries imple-ment NIPs. The GEF-5 Chemicals Focal Area Strategy considers the quantity of PCBs and obsolete pesticides including POPs pesticides disposed of as primary performance indicators and sets targets for each.

This advisory document builds on the original 2004 STAP study on the selection of POPs disposal technologies for GEF-financed projects, and utilizes experience gained during GEF-4. It is not intended to duplicate or supersede technology evaluations provided by the Basel Convention, Stockholm Convention, or other groups, but rather seeks to lay out guidance on the attributes that technologies should demonstrate when GEF funding is involved. The critical elements in POPs technology selection outlined herein can be used to help streamline the design, de-velopment, review, implementation and execution of GEF funded POPs disposal projects. This will provide a con-sistent overall framework for the application of GEF funding in this area, enhance appropriateness of technology to local project conditions, and also support clearer lessons learned as the portfolio of projects matures, enabling further refinement in the approach to project design and maximization of impact and sustainability.

It is specifically directed to recipient countries, implementing agencies and the GEF Secretariat; but may also serve as guidance to technology developers and proponents. Developments related to technology availability are updated, and issues associated with their application in the context of GEF financing in developing coun-tries and CEITs are discussed. More importantly, it also places disposal of POPs stockpiles and waste within the broader context of the POPs management process and sound chemicals management. It has been circulated for review to subject matter experts, the GEF Secretariat, and GEF agencies.

The STAP concludes that destruction cannot be addressed in isolation, but instead, the application of POPs disposal technology should be viewed as one part of an overall POPs management process or system. This system includes steps taken in advance of the actual disposal or destruction to identify, capture, secure, and prepare POPs stockpiles and wastes for disposal, as well as post-destruction steps to manage emissions, by-products and residuals.

The management process depends upon high-quality information regarding POPs stockpiles and waste, and the effectiveness of the institutional and regulatory framework under which POPs management is undertaken. There are several appropriate and capable commercial or near-commercial POPs destruction technologies available; however they are limited largely by their current cost-effectiveness, commercial maturity, and/or ap-plication experience in developing countries and CEITs, where project risks and cost uncertainty are generally higher. GEF financing may consider i) direct funding of disposal costs based on an all inclusive competitive price offered by a service provider with qualified disposal capability; ii) contribution to new disposal facility develop-ment costs; or iii) supporting technology transfer through acquisition and demonstration. But as the cost of environmentally sound disposal of POPs waste in these countries will greatly exceed available GEF resources, maximization of the mass of POPs destroyed, and the global environmental benefit achieved from GEF funding, will involve trade-offs in the technology selection process among unit disposal costs, destruction efficiencies, financial risk, application location, and implementation time required.

Thomas E. LovejoyChair, Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

Hindrik BouwmanPanel Member for Chemicals


Table of Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... iiiAcronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Steps taken in advance of destruction: Characterization, prioritization, capture, containment and pretreatment .................................................... 5 Selection and qualification of a disposal technology including management of by-products and residuals ................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations for the GEF .................................................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 11

2. Definitions Related to POPs Disposal.......................................................................................................... 15

3. Strategy Options for the Overall Management of POPs Stockpile and Waste .......................................... 17

4. Disposal Technology Performance, Safeguard and Commercial Requirements ......................................... 21 Technical and environmental performance ................................................................................................ 21 Safeguards measures ................................................................................................................................. 24 Commercial viability ................................................................................................................................... 26

5. Overview of Available Disposal Technologies ............................................................................................. 29

6. Disposal Technology Selection Process and the GEF Project Cycle ........................................................... 31

7. Recommendations and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 33

Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Summary analysis of GEF POPs funding to the end of GEF-4 ................................................................... 35

Appendix 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Summary characteristics of potentially applicable commercial or near commercial POPs disposal technologies (destruction/irreversible transformation and pre-treatment) ........................ 36

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 43


Acronyms

APC Air Pollution ControlBAT Best Available TechniquesBCD Base Catalysed DecompositionBEP Best Environmental PracticeBREF Best Available Techniques Reference DocumentCEIT Country with Economies in TransitionCOP Conference of the PartiesDDT 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)DE Destruction EfficiencyDRE Destruction and Removal EfficiencyDSS Decision Support SystemEA Environmental AssessmentEMP Environmental Management PlanEMS Environmental Management SystemEOL End of LifeESM Environmentally Sound ManagementFAO United Nations Food and Agriculture OrganizationGEF Global Environmental FacilityGPCR Gas Phase Chemical ReductionHCB HexachlorobenzeneHTI High Temperature IncinerationIA Implementing AgencyIHPA International HCH and Pesticide AssociationIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and ControlNIP National Implementation PlanODS Ozone Depleting SubstancesPCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxinPCDF Polychlorinated dibenzo-furanPCB Polychlorinated biphenylPIF Project Identification FormPOPs Persistent Organic Pollutantsppm Parts per MillionPRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer RegisterSAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals ManagementSTAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment FacilityTEQ Toxic Equivalent UNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNIDO United Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Parties to the Stockholm Convention under Article 6 are obligated to provide for the environmentally sound disposal of POPs stockpiles and wastes. Such disposal1 is fundamental to achieving the Convention’s objective of protecting human health and the environment by permanently eliminating per-sistent organic pollutants (POPs) that might otherwise be distributed into the global ecosystem. As a con-sequence, the disposal of POPs stockpiles and waste is a priority component of National Implementation Plans (NIPs) developed by Parties to the Convention.

Much previous and ongoing discussion centers on what constitutes environmentally sound disposal of POPs, and what disposal technologies can achieve it. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) through the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) con-tributed to this discussion in 2003/2004 in relation to available non-combustion technologies for POPs dis-posal. The Basel Convention, acting in concert with the Stockholm Convention, has issued and periodi-cally updates technical guidelines on POPs manage-ment, including disposal requirements and listings of technologies that may be applicable. To date, these guidelines have been generally welcomed by the Stockholm Convention as the standard reference.

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for Global Environment Facility (GEF) Projects 3

1. Throughout the study, the term “disposal” is used for consis-tency with the wording in Article 6 of the Stockholm Conven-tion and applicable Basel Convention Guidelines, but should be generally equated to other commonly used terms such as “destruction” and “elimination”

Executive Summary

4 Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility

Additionally, comprehensive reviews of technologies are periodically published, and on-line libraries of technology data sheets are maintained by the Basel Convention and supporting organizations.

Most recently, the Fifth Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the Stockholm Convention invited the Basel Convention to continue this work, specifically with respect to: (i) establishing the levels of destruc-tion and irreversible transformation of chemicals to ensure POPs characteristics are not exhibited; (ii) considering methods that constitute environmen-tally sound disposal; (iii) defining low POP-content in wastes; and (iv) updating general technical guide-lines, as well as preparing or updating specific technical guidelines for environmentally sound waste management (SC-5/9). Likewise, in its decision SC-5/20, COP-5 further encourages the GEF and parties in a position to do so, to facilitate the transfer of ap-propriate technologies to developing countries and countries with economies in transition (CEITs).

GEF is the Convention’s principal financial mecha-nism in developing countries and CEITs. It has a strong interest in the process of selecting and implementing POPs disposal technologies, in light of the increasing demand for funding of POPs disposal as countries implement NIPs. To the end of GEF-4, over half of the US$ 412 million allocated to the POPs focal area was directly or indirectly related to stockpile and waste disposal. It is already appar-ent that funding and project demand is expand-ing under the current GEF-5 Chemicals focal area. The GEF-5 Chemicals Focal Area Strategy consid-ers the quantity of PCBs and obsolete pesticides including POPs pesticides disposed of as primary performance indicators and sets targets for each. Therefore, it is an appropriate time for the STAP to provide updated, high-level guidance on the selec-tion of POPs disposal technologies for GEF-financed projects. This advisory document builds on the origi-nal 2004 STAP study and utilizes experience gained during GEF-4. Developments related to technology availability are updated and issues associated with their application in the context of GEF financing in developing countries and CEITs are discussed.

This advisory document is specifically directed to recipient countries, implementing agencies and the GEF Secretariat but may also serve as guidance to technology developers and proponents. With a view to providing a consistent overall framework for the application of GEF funding in this area, it aims to address general requirements and considerations ap-plicable for selection of POPs disposal technologies. It also places disposal of POPs stockpiles and waste within the broader context of the POPs management process and sound chemicals management.

However, the document is not intended to duplicate or supersede technology evaluations provided by the Basel Convention or other groups which, along with the evolving technical literature on the subject, should remain the principal source of information for comparative assessment of technology options. Therefore, it is emphasized that the document should not be interpreted as excluding or advocating any type or particular technology. Rather, it should be seen as guidance on the attributes that technologies should demonstrate when GEF funding is involved.

This guidance on selection of POPs disposal tech-nology is intended to accomplish the following:

• Ensureanytechnologychosenmeetsacceptedand consistent environmental performance requirements;

• Defineminimumstandardsandperformancerequirements applicable to developing countries and CEITs that are consistent with but do not exceed those generally accepted in developed countries;

• AssurethatPOPsdisposalisintegratedwiththeoverall POPs management process employed;

• Providesafeguardstoassureenvironmentallysound management throughout the POPs man-agement process, and

• Integratecommercialviabilitywithtechnicalfea-sibility and environmental performance in tech-nology selection.

In general, the destruction or irreversible transfor-mation of POPs in an environmentally sound manner is not limited by the availability of appropriate tech-nology - there are a number of such technologies.

Selection of Persistent Organic Pollutant Disposal Technology for the Global Environment Facility 5

Rather, it is limited by the practical ability to as-semble and apply them - particularly in developing countries and CEIT’s - in a manner that is efficacious, timely and economical.

Destruction cannot be addressed in isolation. The application of POPs disposal technology should be viewed as one part of an overall POPs management process or system. This system includes steps taken in advance of the actual disposal or destruction to identify, capture, secure, and prepare POPs stock-piles and wastes for disposal. It also includes post-destruction steps to manage emissions, by-products and residuals. The management process depends upon high-quality information regarding POPs stockpiles and waste, and the effectiveness of the institutional and regulatory framework under which POPs management is undertaken.

Steps Taken in Advance of Destruction. Characterization, Prioritization, Capture, Containment and Pretreatment

A prerequisite for organizing and implementing POPs disposal is an effective legislative and regula-tory framework for POPs identification and control. Such a framework allows the assembly of accurate and sufficiently complete inventories of:

(i) POPs stockpiles and waste in terms of quantity, identity and potency, location, owner/custody, and current storage and containment status;

(ii) POPs-containing equipment in service linked to a general plan for its retirement;

(iii) POPs-contaminated sites - known and potential - with assessment of risks and potential remedia-tion requirements, and

(iv) Analytical capacity to characterize and monitor current and future POPs stockpiles and wastes.

Based on inventories, stockpiles that are high in POPs volume, have high POPs content, or present the greatest environmental and health risks, should be dealt with first. Recovering, isolating and storing

POPs securely can often be the most cost-effective strategy for immediately mitigating risk consistent with the Conventions’ objectives. This requires the physi-cal capacity to identify, capture, transport and contain them, even if disposal cannot occur immediately. It also requires appropriate sustainable care and custody arrangements to ensure no release while materials are stored. Effective capture is also a prerequisite for any intermediate pre-treatment activity that may optimize and support the application of a disposal technology.

Selection and Qualification of a Disposal Technology Including Management of By-Products and Residuals

1) Environmental Performance. POPs destruction technologies should be evaluated on the level of destruction and irreversible transformation they achieve. This requires consideration of all waste output streams from the technology, inclusive of POPs other than those being destroyed, that may be unintentionally produced during the destruc-tion process.

Destruction Efficiency (DE), which is the percent-age of originating POPs destroyed or irrevers-ibly transformed by the technology is the most comprehensive measure of destruction applica-ble to originating POPs, where it can be reliably and reproducibly measured. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) is the percentage of original POPs destroyed, irreversibly transformed or removed from the air emission stream. It may serve as a supplementary performance param-eter recognizing it only accounts for releases to air and not what could be transferred to other by-products and residuals streams. A DE>99.99% and DRE>99.9999% are recommended as work-ing benchmarks for application in GEF projects. In general, higher DEs are preferred, but tech-nologies should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Where large amounts of POPs require disposal and financial capacity is limited, the actual volume of POPs destroyed or irreversibly


transformed may be maximized by use of a lower cost option that achieves the minimum DE, rather than a higher cost option that greatly exceeds the minimum DE.

Neither DE nor DRE take into account the poten-tial for transformation of originating POPs to oth-er POPs in the technological process. Therefore, any technology should demonstrate that this potential is minimized and at acceptable levels. Ensuring application of best available techniques and best environmental practices (BAT/BEP) to define safe design and operating conditions specific to the technology involved is recom-mended to maximize achievable environmental performance. For solid residuals or by-products containing either original or transformation POPs, the current provisional Basel low-POPs content levels should apply as an upper limit, noting that these may be changed and expanded periodi-cally. Lower levels based on BAT/BEP should be attained where practical. Similarly, limits for air re-lease of original and transformation POPs should be set at a level generally accepted in developed countries. For polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo-furans (PCDD/PCDF), this is 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3 to air, again not-ing that BAT/BEP applicable to technologies can result in substantially better performance.

2) Safeguard Measures. These include documented processes, procedures and oversight actions that should be part of a GEF project’s monitoring and evaluation plan, including:

• Institutional/regulatorycommitmentandca-pacity to undertake appropriate oversight and enforcement;

• AnationalPOPsinventoryandendorsedNIP,regularly maintained and updated consistent with Convention obligations;

• UnambiguouslegalcustodyandownershipofPOPs stockpiles and wastes, covering rights of access, assignment of financial liability for dis-posal and environmental damage, and monitor-ing and site closure;

• Credibleenvironmentalassessmentandper-mitting applied to facilities and activities and benchmarked against international standards and practice;

• Performancemonitoringduringoperationsanddocumentation of the fate of all residues;

• Publicparticipation,consultationanddisclosureincluding timely access to information about POPs stockpile and waste disposal and input on how these activities are conducted;

• Health,safetyandemergencyresponseplanscovering protection and monitoring of workers involved in operating the technology and any potentially exposed members of the public.

3) Commercial Viability and Economies of Scale. Successful, sustainable performance of any technology also depends upon commercial or financial sustainability. In general, projects should employ the most cost effective commercial arrangement that also serves to maximize the quantity of POPs disposed of, and net global en-vironmental benefit at minimum risk to comple-tion. These conditions are most often satisfied where the selected technologies are packaged on a complete turn-key basis operating at a pre-dictable “all inclusive” unit cost, with appropri-ate performance guarantees, free of any dispute over technology ownership or licensee rights. This generally requires that a vendor possess the rights to the technology, a demonstrated track record, and the capacity to operate it at the re-quired location. It also includes technical support and training capacity, and the financial strength to undertake the proposed work, particularly where 1) the application is to occur in developing countries and CEITs and 2) technology transfer is involved. Where the vendor arrangements involve local partnerships, national government guarantees may be required to ensure the sus-tainability of local arrangements and completion of the disposal works.

Recognizing the GEF’s commitment to technol-ogy transfer to developing countries and CEITs, the GEF can also consider some financing of


technology demonstration, transfer to, and/or acquisition by GEF recipient countries, or sup-port for the latter stages of commercialization of locally developed technologies. However, this involves assumption of risks in development, performance, cost and timing - something that argues for caution in undertaking such commit-ments. Mitigation measures, such as ensuring the sharing of financial exposure and phased imple-mentation arrangements, should be included. Such proposals should generally be oriented toward technologies that are compatible with local conditions, and which offer economies of scale and realistic potential for future cost reduc-tion and efficiencies. In particular, such initiatives may be most productively oriented to pre-treat-ment technologies and longer-term destruction of stockpiles of low-concentration/high-volume contaminated POPs/chemicals waste and sites.

The need for disposal capacity, current and future, and the potential for economies of scale can influence POPs destruction technology choices. That need also guides decisions regarding de-velopment of domestic capacity vs. utilization of qualified facilities elsewhere. In many cases, countries should consider combining their dis-posal requirements with others and cooperating in regional pre-treatment and disposal capability. They may also consider integrating POPs stockpile and waste disposal with development of more broadly-based hazardous and chemical waste management infrastructure so as to maximize the effectiveness of scarce financial resources.


4) Infrastructure considerations. Most qualified POPs disposal technologies have been implemented in developed countries possessing mature regula-tory and institutional frameworks, good supporting infrastructure, a strong technical expertise base, and sufficient resources to support their applica-tion. However, these supporting attributes may not be as readily available in developing countries and CEITs. High-performance technologies involve complex equipment, sophisticated controls and processes and require such things as reliable power and other utilities for safe and sustainable opera-tion. A technology selection process has to assess these infrastructure needs and prudently balance the decision between technological complexity and practical applicability vs. simplicity of operation.

This document contains a listing of technologies applicable to POPs stockpile and waste disposal that potentially meet environmental performance, safeguards and commercial viability requirements, including technologies that have or are currently being supported in GEF financed projects. It sum-marizes their principal application characteristics and includes references to detailed fact sheets where available. This listing covers commercial and near-commercial technologies classed as operating in reducing, closed, and/or starved oxygen envi-ronment, and commercial technologies operating in open oxidizing environments. A third category covering primary pre-treatment technologies is also included. It is emphasized that this list is illustrative, and users undertaking specific technology selection work should carefully validate information with the referenced documentation and candidate vendors. It is also not intended to exclude any other tech-nologies or variations of those identified that can demonstrate the above requirements. New tech-nologies or modifications of current technologies offering both improved environmental performance and cost-effectiveness will inevitably enter the mar-ket and may be considered.

The document also includes a strategic approach to the technology selection process, noting that the tim-ing constraints of maintaining an efficient GEF project cycle may themselves limit technology selection. A screening stage leading to a short list of technologies or combinations of technologies may be undertaken in advance of Project Information Form (PIF) submis-sion, but will more likely occur during the GEF sup-ported project preparation stage. A final technology selection might be made at this stage, but could also be part of project implementation, involving the for-mal evaluation of concrete commercial proposals. In some cases, particularly where technology transfer is involved, final selection might proceed in two stages: the first involving a demonstration of the technology, followed by a commitment to completing disposal of the larger volume POPs stockpiles and wastes if suc-cessful and cost effective.

Recommendations for the GEF

STAP’s Advisory Document concludes with the fol-lowing overarching recommendations respecting the GEF’s role in supporting the disposal of POPs stockpiles and waste and specifically the selection of POPs disposal technology:

1) POPs disposal should not be considered in isola-tion. It is an integral component of environmen-tally sound POPs management.

2) As a general principle, developing countries and CEITs should not be held to more stringent stan-dards than those accepted and generally applied in developed countries.

3) Environmentally sound disposal of POPs is not generally limited by availability of appropriate and capable commercial and near-commercial POPs destruction technology.

4) Many available technologies are limited largely by their current cost-effectiveness and


commercial maturity. For some, there is also a lack of application experience in developing countries and CEITs, where project risks and cost uncertainty are generally higher.

5) The cost of environmentally sound disposal of the totality of POPs waste in developing coun-tries and CEITs will greatly exceed available GEF resources. Therefore, maximizing the mass of POPs destroyed, and the global environmental benefit achieved from GEF funding, will involve trade-offs in the technology selection process among unit disposal costs, destruction efficien-cies, financial risk, application location, and implementation time required.

6) GEF financing may consider i) direct funding of disposal costs based on an all inclusive com-petitive price offered by a service provider with qualified disposal capability; ii) contribution to new disposal facility development costs; or iii) supporting technology transfer through acquisi-tion and demonstration.

The critical elements in POPs technology selec-tion outlined in this document may be used to help streamline the design, development, review, implementation and execution of GEF funded POPs disposal projects. A more uniform approach to POPs disposal projects will enhance appropriateness of technology to local project conditions. It would also support clearer lessons learned as the portfolio of projects matures, enabling further refinement in the approach to project design, and maximization of impact and sustainability.

The purpose of this STAP Advisory Document is to provide updated guidance on the selection of disposal technologies for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as applied in GEF-financed projects undertaken within the Chemicals Focal Area. The target audience for this work is the GEF itself, acting as the financial mechanism for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention, 2001), and the family of decision-makers2 who are involved in implementing it.

The question of what constitutes an appropriate dis-posal technology for POPs and what barriers exist in applying such a technology has been, and remains, an important implementation issue for the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (the Parties) and the GEF. These questions were the subject of extensive study and debate during the development and negotiation of the Convention in the late 1990s. This discussion has continued since the signing of the Convention in 2001, and is now of immediate practical interest as Convention implementation activities are underway. The GEF, and specifically the STAP, have been active in this discussion, includ-ing undertaking a major workshop and study (STAP, 2004a, b) on emerging and innovative technologies, primarily non-combustion technologies.

2. Including, inter alia, GEF Secretariat, GEF Implementing Agencies, and GEF’s recipient countries


1. Introduction


Between 2001 and the end of GEF-4 in mid 2010, the GEF had allocated about US$412 million to a portfolio of 219 POPs projects and secured about US$667 million in co-financing. One hundred thirty-two countries had undertaken enabling activities and other capacity-building projects targeting prep-aration and submission of NIPs, with about US$69 million in GEF funding. Ninety-seven countries receiving GEF support had submitted completed and endorsed NIPs, 29 counties had pending NIP submissions, while 6 GEF-supported countries had not moved forward with completing NIPs to date. One hundred twenty-eight of the GEF-supported countries had ratified or acceded to the Stockholm Convention. Six countries receiving enabling activity support were not yet Parties to the Convention.

During GEF-4, 85 GEF POPs projects have moved into NIP implementation either as country-specific projects (52 projects) or global or regional projects facilitating implementation (33 projects). These projects accounted for US$343 million or 83% of the GEF’s accumulated financial commitment to this fo-cal area at the end of the GEF-4 replenishment pe-riod. NIP implementation projects will probably be the main focus in the future. Forty-seven (55%) NIP implementation GEF-4 projects included substantive components related to management and disposal of POPs under Article 6 of the Convention. These projects account for GEF commitments of US$216 million or 63% of the NIP implementation project commitments and 52% of the GEF’s overall com-mitment. These projects typically cover: i) technical assistance for the process of determining disposal strategies including identifying and evaluating disposal technology options; ii) operational activities related to capturing and securing stockpiles; and iii) disposal of POPs material, with the latter generally being the largest expenditure.

An analysis of GEF-4 NIP implementation projects (Appendix 1) shows that 28 projects involve allocation of GEF funds to studies intended to identify, evaluate and/or select disposal technology options. Twenty-six projects have selected or expressed a preference for at least a general class of technology, with 19

selecting combustion and 7 selecting nominally non-combustion options for some disposal requirements. In the case of combustion technology, most have selected high temperature incineration (HTI) at es-tablished hazardous waste facilities, although 2 have indicated co-disposal in cement kilns may be used. Three non-combustion projects3 have progressed to technology specification and two are moving forward to actually having demonstration facilities in place. Others have generally short-listed candidate tech-nologies, subject to more detailed assessment.

Where a preference is specified, 25 GEF-4 projects indicate plans to export stockpiles for disposal, while 18 are pursuing in-country disposal options. Smaller and less industrially developed countries are electing export, while larger countries with more substantial industrial capacity are favoring existing or proposed new domestic disposal facilities, often with linkages to broader hazardous waste management capability. At least 24 projects have also included pre-treatment of POPs stockpiles and waste, typically related to decontamination of PCB-containing electrical equip-ment and contaminated oils. Similarly, many of these projects include capacity-strengthening related to POPs-contaminated sites.

In addition to the practical experience associ-ated with NIP implementation, a number of other developments and broader trends have emerged since 2004 that influence selection of disposal technology. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal (Basel Convention), as mandated under Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention, has prepared and periodically updates guidance for the overall management of POPs, as well as for specific POPs substances, including consideration of disposal technology options encompassing both combustion and non-combustion systems (Basel Convention, 2011). This guidance (Basel Guidelines) has been formally endorsed for use by the Parties and is considered the compliance benchmark. As such, the Basel Guidelines should be used in con-junction with this document in undertaking GEF-financed POPs disposal projects. There has also

3. Non-combustion demonstration projects in Slovakia (GEF ID 1692) and the Philippines (GEF ID 2329), and the Agent Orange clean-up project in Vietnam (GEF ID 3032)


been an expansion of the substances covered by the Convention (Stockholm Convention, 2009) which may impact disposal technology selection options as countries begin to undertake management of stockpiles and waste associated with them.

Global attention to sound chemicals management has progressed significantly. In particular, the SAICM framework serves to link and find synergies among a number of chemicals-related Conventions and international agreements, including the Stockholm Convention. Consistent with sound chemicals manage-ment, there is increasing recognition that management of POPs stockpiles and wastes should be integrated into the development of environmentally sound haz-ardous waste management capacity and infrastructure. While not explicitly addressed in this work, many of the technologies available for POPs disposal also have potential application to the broader end management of hazardous and chemical wastes.

These linkages are reflected in the GEF-5 Focal Area Strategies (GEF, 2009) and Final GEF-5 Programming Document (GEF, 2005) with creation

of a combined Focal Area covering sound chemi-cals management and encompassing the previously separate POPs and Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) Focal Areas. With respect to ODS, an emerg-ing priority of the Montreal Protocol is the environ-mentally sound destruction of “end of life” (EOL) ODS, which involves technology selection issues similar to those associated with POPs. Nevertheless, phasing out POPs and reducing POPs releases remains a primary objective (Chem-1) of the GEF-5 Chemicals Focal Area strategy with the large major-ity of resources being programmed toward that ob-jective. More specifically, the amount of POPs waste prevented, managed, and disposed of, and the number of POPs-contaminated sites managed in an environmentally sound manner is a defined outcome (Outcome 1.4). The amounts of PCBs and obsolete pesticides, including POPs pesticides, disposed of are listed as the primary performance indicators.

Therefore, it is propitious for GEF/STAP to examine the current status of disposal technologies and their application through GEF financial support in devel-oping countries and CEITs. The work expands the


guidance of the original GEF STAP study to reflect experience gained during GEF-4. This includes recognition that disposal technology should not be viewed in isolation. Other aspects of the waste man-agement process also have a significant bearing on disposal system decision-making. The practical as-pects of applying technology in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner in developing coun-tries and CEITs also deserve serious consideration.

While the focus of this document is on performance-based selection and application of disposal technol-ogy to POPs stockpiles and wastes, it also provides guidance regarding activities required to support disposal. It defines “safeguards”: that is, measures assuring environmentally sound management during disposal of POPs stockpiles and waste. Safeguards guide implementing agencies and GEF beneficia-ries as they prepare, approve, implement, monitor and evaluate GEF financed projects. Finally, there is a need to integrate commercial performance and economic-viability criteria into the technology selection process. Sustainable financial operation of a facility, regardless of the assessed technical and environmental performance potential, is critical to achieving ultimate environmentally sound disposal.

This work does not attempt to duplicate other detailed technology studies, the line libraries of technology assessments available, particularly those maintained by the Basel Convention (Secretariat of the Basel Convention, ND) the International HCH and Pesticide Association (IHPA, 2011), the comprehen-sive technology options study undertaken as part of several GEF-4 supported initiatives such as the Africa Stockpiles Programme (Africa Stockpiles Programme, 2011) and the recent comprehensive updated review of non-combustion technologies prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, 2010). Likewise, it does not create an expert Decision Support System (DSS) that could be utilized in screening, and ultimately selecting, disposal technologies. However, such a DSS may find application in conjunction with this guidance docu-ment on an application-specific basis, if it will be developed in the future.

Article 6 of the Convention addresses measures to reduce or eliminate releases of POPs4 in the form of stockpiles of Annex A and B chemicals, and wastes containing Annex A, B and C chemicals. It requires Parties to manage POPs stockpiles and wastes in a manner protective of human health and the environ-ment. Management of POPs stockpiles and wastes includes their identification, as well as identification of products and articles in use that may become POPs stockpiles and wastes, and their physical management in a safe, efficient and environmentally sound manner, inclusive of handling, collection, transportation storage and disposal.

In the case of disposal, Article 6 states that this must occur so that “the persistent organic pollutant con-tent is destroyed or irreversibly transformed so that they do not exhibit the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner when destruction or irreversible transformation does not represent the environmentally preferable option or the persistent organic pollutant content is low, taking into account international rules, standards, and guidelines.”

Article 6 also: i) excludes disposal operations that may lead to recovery, recycling, reclamation, di-rect re-use or alternative uses of POPs; ii) prohibits transport of POPs stockpiles and wastes across international boundaries without consideration of

4. For purposes of this document POPs shall be those substanc-es specifically defined as such in the Annex A, B and C of the Convention.


2. Definitions Related to POPs Disposal


international rules, standards and guidelines; and iii) requires the identification and remediation of POPs contaminated sites in an environmentally sound manner. The referenced international rules, standards and guidelines encompass regional and global regimes governing the management of haz-ardous waste as well as guidance developed coop-eratively with the Basel Convention.

The key criteria needed to assess the acceptability of disposal and the technologies applied are : i) the required level of destruction and irreversible transformation that is considered to eliminate the characteristics of POPs as defined in Annex D of the Convention; ii) standards for environmentally sound management of POPs stockpiles and wastes gener-ally and specifically as may be defined by BAT/BEP standards where possible; and iii) acceptably low POPs content both in the context of defining what is to be considered as POPs stockpiles or wastes, and acceptable as residual POPs content in resi-dues and releases after application of a disposal technology. The Stockholm and Basel Conventions share the mandate for determining these criteria. They are addressed on an interim basis in the Basel Guidelines for the originally designated Annex A, B and C POPs, with continuing joint work by technical bodies mandated by both conventions providing refinement and expansion on an ongoing basis. Ongoing guidance on these criteria can be expect-ed in relation to “new” POPs, new and emerging

technologies, and BAT/BEP standards applicable to them as they mature.

In addition, there is a need to integrate destruc-tion technology evaluation and selection with techniques for other POPs management activities that are implicitly or explicitly covered by Article 6. Pre-treatment of POPs waste and stockpiles should be considered, both in terms of its environmentally sound performance but also in terms of its im-pact on selection, practicality, and performance of technologies considered for subsequent disposal. Similarly, management and disposal of residuals from destruction activities must be considered.

Article 6 also encompasses remediation of POPs-contaminated sites - soil, sediment or water - to a level defined by a cleanup standard, possibly the Basel low-POPs-content level. This may involve a mix of technologies that can either: i) remove POPs from the contaminated medium for subsequent destruction/irreversible transformation (i.e. disposal); and/or ii) destroy or irreversibly transform the POPs contaminant in-situ. While, remediation technolo-gies cannot be strictly equated with disposal tech-nologies applied directly to POPs stockpiles and wastes, in many cases they will be common, par-ticularly where they complete environmental sound destruction or irreversible transformation to the cleanup standard meeting an accepted definition of low POPs content.


3. Strategy Options for the Overall Management of POPs Stockpile and Waste

The POPs waste management process encompasses roughly sequential phases of identification, capture and containment, pre-treatment (if applicable), and disposal inclusive of disposal verification, residuals management, and post disposal monitoring. The first three phases are undertaken prior to the dispos-al phase, and pre-existing infrastructure for residual management may also be required. Pre-treatment may be a distinct phase in advance of disposal or part of disposal per se. In any event, the “front end” phases, pre-treatment, and residuals management can each significantly impact the approach to dis-posal and the associated technology selection.

Identification. The first phase in management entails accumulating detailed knowledge of existing and potential POPs stockpiles and wastes. Potential wastes include POPs-contaminated equipment and products either still in use or which might be identi-fied in the future. A baseline inventory of production and use of POPs, some knowledge of past POPs contamination of sites, and the location of current and potential stockpiles and waste form the starting point for NIP development.

Ideally, the NIP baseline inventory includes specific locations, current physical condition and custody of stockpiles, and potential risks if released. Similarly, the inventory should quantify POPs containing prod-ucts in use. The principle example of this is PCB-containing equipment in service that will require some forecast of the rate at which it will be retired and added to the inventory for disposal. Similarly,


some knowledge of potentially contaminated sites should be provided. This baseline inventory can help define disposal requirements sufficiently to allow planning for the needed scale and timing, as well as technical attributes required of the disposal technology and supporting infrastructure.

However, baseline POPs inventories are often less detailed than described above, and may require fur-ther data collection. In turn, this is often dependent on developing institutional capacity and legislative and regulatory tools to formalize identification and registration of POPs for control purposes. It also may require acquisition of analytical capability to support waste identification and prioritization. Therefore, ad-ditional refinement of the POPs inventory, inclusive of supporting information and capacity strengthening, may be needed before moving forward with the dis-posal phase. This will vary from country to country.5

Regardless of the complexity, GEF support for disposal should depend upon a reasonably accu-rate definition of the quantities of POPs targeted for disposal, their characteristics, their location, the feasibility of accessing them, and a forecast of future disposal requirements as a function of time and quantity. This will require critical assessment of the inventories as part of finalizing disposal strategy and detailed technology selection. For purposes of evaluating a country’s readiness for funding the fol-lowing should be considered:

i) The legislative and regulatory framework for control of POPs, including sites where POPs stockpiles and waste are located or sites that are contaminated with POPs, registration/labeling/status reporting of POPs-containing equipment and products in use, and provi-sions for enforcement of such controls;

ii) Current, creditable inventory of POPs stockpiles and wastes including quantity, general analytical characterization, location, owner, and assess-ment of current storage and containment status;

iii) Formal inventory of POPs-containing prod-ucts in use linked to a general plan for their

capture and removal from service in accor-dance with national phase out objectives and those required under the Convention;

iv) Formal inventory of potential POPs-contaminated sites with preliminary assess-ment of impact and risk;

v) Provision for maintaining and regularly updat-ing inventories; and

vi) Availability of qualified sampling and analytical capacity to characterize POPs wastes and as-sess POPs content in POPs containing equip-ment, inclusive of institutional arrangements that provide for access to this capability.

Capture and Containment. Identified POPs stock-piles and waste should be captured and contained in a secure fashion, so as to immediately mitigate near-term risk and prevent release of POPs into the environment. Containment is particularly important as there may be significant delay between identification of POPs stockpiles and wastes, and the availability of financial resources for disposal.

Capture and containment involves securely packag-ing or containerizing these materials as required at their current locations, characterization via an item-ized inventory, and protection against release during handling and storage. Packaging or containerization may also involve clean up and packaging of surface site contamination and isolation of consumables used in the packaging process. If the material is to remain at its original location, it may be necessary to provide secondary containment and security; however, it will more often be transported to a centralized secure transitional storage site. All practices, procedures and standards for these activities, including training and occupational health and safety provisions, should be established in national hazardous waste regula-tions and these regulations should be benchmarked against international standards. Substantial published guidance is referenced in the Basel Guidelines and, for POPs pesticides, in the guidance and training materials published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (FAO, 2011).

5. It should be noted that the GEF-5 Focal Area Strategy makes provision for updating of NIP’s which potentially allows resources to be directed to this kind of NIP refinement and should be coordinated with NIP implementation proposals.


The choice between locating transitional secure storage at the original location of the stockpiles, or a centralized designated facility will be a function of a variety of factors including, inter alia:

i) Condition of POPs stockpiles and wastes any acute risks they pose;

ii) Proximity to sensitive human or environmen-tal receptors;

iii) Physical state of the waste;iv) Public reaction to their presence;v) Quantity;vi) Existence of clear sustainable custody ar-

rangements including appropriate training and equipment;

vii) Pre-treatment considerations if applicable;viii) Estimates of future stockpiles and waste gen-

eration with associated storage requirements;ix) Availability of acceptable centralized storage

or resource requirements to develop it, andx) Likely timing of undertaking actual disposal.

Large industrial or communal infrastructure facilities holding POPs stockpiles and wastes may be appro-priate locations for transitional storage until dispos-al. Choice of such facilities must consider whether: i) the storage facility operator is financially stable; ii) the ownership and custody arrangements covering the subject POPs stockpiles and wastes are clear and undisputed; and iii) there is an ongoing need for such capacity for future POPs stockpiles. As an example, this option for storage could be appropri-ate where a major electrical utility holds significant stockpiles, has pre-existing maintenance infrastruc-ture, and the technical capability to manage it.

However, POPs stockpiles and wastes are often comprised of widely distributed small quantities with no clear custody or ownership, and thus are difficult to monitor. Such distributed stockpiles constitute a public liability, and a state responsibility is implied for re-packaging, local cleanup of contaminated material and consolidation at a centralized storage facility. Furthermore, this kind of secure transitional


storage may form part of a more general transfer station system developed as part of broader na-tional chemical and hazardous waste management infrastructure. They may also serve as a basis for incremental development of pre-treatment and ulti-mately disposal facilities.

In summary, sustainable “front end” capability and capacity for identification, capture and secure con-tainment/storage should be in place or committed to as a condition of major commitment to high cost dis-posal, and included in NIP implementation proposals.

The quantities of POPs waste and stockpiles will largely determine whether a country elects to de-velop its own disposal capacity to or access facilities elsewhere. NIP inventories show that POPs stock-piles and waste vary greatly, country to country, but estimated quantities are generally small compared to hazardous waste generated in even moderately industrialized countries, and would generally require a small portion of the broader commercial treatment

and disposal capacity might be available or would developed. Thus, many countries should look to combining their POPs disposal requirements with others, either through exporting to existing facilities or collaborating in development of regional facilities. It also suggests that countries should carefully evalu-ate upstream pre-treatment as a means of reducing the amount of material requiring transfer elsewhere.

Initial system investment should commonly be for capture and containment via a secure transitional storage facility. In practice, the need for such capacity exists in virtually any country. Ultimately, the goal is disposal consistent with elimination of the materials, but secure storage may reduce the time pressure on selection of disposal technology. Further, high concentration POPs or those with particularly high risks for near term destruction - should be the priority, even if it means shipment to existing facilities - while storing lower concentra-tion contaminated materials for future disposal.


4. Disposal Technology Performance, Safeguard and Commercial Requirements.

This section provides guidance on “environmentally sound disposal” and on “environmentally sound technology” utilized for disposal. It also introduces guidance for determining commercial sustainability.

Technical and Environmental Performance

As an overall principle, the Basel Guidelines, as periodically amended and adopted by the Convention, should constitute basic guidance and minimum standards applied to POPs stockpiles and waste disposal technology used in GEF funded projects. These may also be supplemented by other applicable internationally-accepted guidance. Similarly, credible national regulatory standards and applicable BAT/BEP standards, where avail-able, should govern compliance with environmental performance parameters not related to POPs emis-sions or discharges. Likewise, a basic assumption in this work is that more restrictive technical and environmental performance standards would not be applied to GEF financing of POPs disposal in developing countries and CEITs than are applied in developed countries.6

6. This should does preclude or discourage developing coun-tries or CEITs from adopting more stringent standards where as a policy this is felt appropriate and such standards can be achieved in a cost effective manner.


Pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, environ-mental performance standards should be applied to the following interrelated areas: i) degree of destruc-tion or irreversible transformation required; ii) low POPs content; iii) permitted level of unintended POPs releases; and iv) environmentally sound

disposal in the absence of destruction and irrevers-ible transformation. In effect, the overall criteria for environmental performance of POPs destruction technologies should be based on the achieved level of destruction and irreversible transformation. That includes consideration of all waste output streams from the technology, inclusive of POPs other than those being destroyed that may be unintentionally produced during the destruction process.

Degree of destruction or irreversible transforma-tion. The most comprehensive available parameter applicable to originating POPs stockpiles and waste is Destruction Efficiency (DE)7 which is the percentage of originating POPs destroyed or ir-reversibly transformed by a particular technology. Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE)8 which is the percentage of original POPs destroyed, ir-reversibly transformed and removed from the air emission stream, is also a commonly used param-eter for degree of destruction in developed coun-tries. Both parameters have limitations. Neither DE nor DRE take into account the potential for transformation of originating POPs to other POPs in the technological process. DE can be difficult to reliably and reproducibly measure. DRE only accounts for releases to air and not what could be transferred to other by-products and residuals streams. Recognizing the aforementioned limita-tions, these parameters are generally used as a technology performance measure in the destruc-tion and irreversible transformation of originating POPs. Therefore this work recommends that an acceptable and demonstrated level of DE be used and that DRE may be used in conjunction with DE. This recognizes that, while the achievement of high DREs demonstrates minimal POPs release to air, this must not be accomplished via transfer of releases to other environmental paths. In practice, developed countries accept less than 100% de-struction with some release from the process and retention of some level of POPs content in residu-als. Based on the review of available commercial and near commercial technologies contained in

Environmentally Sound Technologies

Environmentally Sound Technologies maximize en-vironmental protection, minimize environmentally damaging emissions, use resources in a sustain-able manner, minimize waste generation, maxi-mize waste/by-product recycling, and responsibly handle what residual wastes that are generated.

Environmentally Sound Technologies are complete systems that include know-how, technical proce-dures, goods and services, equipment, organiza-tional/managerial procedures and a supporting sustainable commercial base. Consequently, the assessment, transfer and assimilation of these technologies involve human resources develop-ment, local capacity building needs, institutional and regulatory context, and sufficient and sustain-able financing and commercial arrangements. Moreover, such technologies need to be compat-ible with nationally determined socioeconomic, cultural and economic development priorities while maintaining recognized environmental, human health and safety standards.

Environmentally Sound Technologies meet standards of environmental performance. Appropriateness of technologies for specific situ-ations is determined by consistent, comparative evaluation of their environmental performance and impacts, and a range of technical, com-mercial and external factors. An expert Decision Support System (DSS) could be a useful tool for such a comparative evaluation.

7. Calculated on the basis of the mass of the POP content within the waste, minus the mass of the remaining POP content in the gas-eous, liquid and solid residues, divided by the mass of the POP content within the waste, i.e., DE = (POP content within waste – POP content within gas, liquid and solid residual) / POP content within the waste.

8. Calculated on the basis of mass of the POP content within the waste, minus the mass of the remaining POP content in the gaseous residues (stack emissions), divided by the mass of the POP content within the wastes, i.e., DRE = (POP content within waste – POP content within gas residual) / POP content within the waste.


Section 5, an attainable minimum DE is 99.99%, with 99.9999% DRE as a supplemental requirement where applicable provides practical benchmark parameters for assessing disposal technology performance. Higher demonstrated DEs may be preferred on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, where large amounts of POPs require disposal, and financial capacity is limited, the actual volume of POPs destroyed or irreversibly transformed may be maximized by use of a lower cost option that achieves the minimum DE, rather than a higher cost option that greatly exceeds the minimum DE. In any situation, best available techniques and best environmental practices (BAT/BEP), and a facility designed for safe operation of the specific technol-ogy involved, should be applied to ensure the an-ticipated environmental performance is achieved. Guidance on the actual residual POPs levels that need to be met is addressed below.

Low POPs Content. The Convention and the Basel Guidelines, sets out provisional limits for low POPs content, and the mechanism to review, expand and potentially revise these levels as required has been established jointly between the two conventions. The provisional levels currently adopted and which would apply for purposes of this guidance are: i) PCBs: 50 mg/kg; ii) PCDDs and PCDFs: 15 μg TEQ/kg; and iii) Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, HCB, mirex and toxaphene: 50 mg/kg for each. As of yet, low POPs content has not been defined for new POPs added to the Convention in 2010.

Unintentional releases from environmentally sound disposal. Recognizing that neither DE nor DRE take into account the potential for transformation of originating POPs to other POPs in the technological process, such releases should be accounted for in the assessment of technologies. Most commonly, this refers to atmospheric emission of PCDD/PCDF and other Annex C materials created during destruction processes. Generally, the benchmark level in devel-oped countries and the Basel guidelines for PCDD/PCDF is 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3; however, state-of-the-art performance may be substantially lower and should be considered in comparative assessment of technol-ogies. Standards for other unintended POPs release

both to air and other media should be governed by pertinent national legislation and international rules, standards and the Basel Guidelines as they may cover such releases in the future.

Environmentally sound disposal in the absence of destruction or irreversible transformation. Most of-ten, this refers to disposition of destruction residuals having POPs content below the low POPs content. It could also apply where financial resources are not available to for immediate POPs destruction but prompt interim action is needed. It may also apply when destruction is not an environmentally sound or practical option.

In the case of solids, the Basel Guidelines identify engineered landfills and permanent storage in underground mines and formations as technology options. The intent of the guidelines is that such disposal should minimize the risk of release of re-sidual POPs to the environment, primarily to surface or ground water, and wider transfer into the open environment.

The guidance prohibits land disposal of liquid or semi-liquid POPs containing wastes or residues, and limits of solid disposal to facilities that meet accepted international or developed country requirements for hazardous waste land disposal (Basel Convention, 1995; EU, 1999; USEPA, 2011). These requirements should specifically cover: i) the natural hydrogeological setting and barriers it provides; ii) engineered barriers that limit infiltration into leachate and leachate escape from the landfill; iii) leachate collection and treatment capability; iv) POPs waste location identification in the landfill; v) ground and surface water monitoring; vi) clo-sure requirements; and vii) post closure custody, moni-toring, land use restriction, and liability arrangements.

As a general practice in relation to GEF Projects, land disposal options should be limited to solid waste that meets the Basel Guidelines’ provisional low POPs content if considered anything but a transi-tional step to destruction. Solid wastes above the low POPs content level should be pre-treated to remove residual POPs, or ensure their potential release from the waste is minimized (USEPA, 1992; Environment Canada, 2002; European Communities, 2003). Where


solid waste exceeds the low POPs content level, a specific justification and risk assessment for land disposal should be provided on a case-by-case basis. In no case should the POPs content exceed the level allowable consistent with international best practice. Similarly retained POPs content in liquid discharges to the general environment should be governed by credible national and/or international waste water discharge standards, and where practical subject to pre-treatment removal.

While the above guidance does not differentiate between combustion and non-combustion technolo-gies, in reality, the majority of POPs disposal capacity in place globally is currently based on combustion, typically as part of broader commercial hazardous waste management systems. The majority of this ca-pacity is based on high temperature incineration (HTI) designed generally for destruction of organic haz-ardous waste with some capacity provided through co-disposal in cement kilns. As a consequence, POPs actually disposed of using GEF support to date has relied on commercially-available combustion based facilities with demonstrated environmentally sound performance, meeting developed country regulatory standards. However, it is recognized that combus-tion technologies may underperform, particularly with respect to unintended POPs releases under Convention Article 5 and Annex C. For this reason, it is recommended that their use be consistent with the guidance on best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practice (BEP) for provided by the Convention (Stockholm Convention, N.D.), and the European Commission IPPC BREF for BAT applicable to waste incineration (European Commission, 2006). In this regard, particular attention should be paid to facility-specific performance demonstration data, including emission monitoring practices and history, demonstration of performance on test burns, evalu-ation of residual POPs content in solid and liquid residuals and discharges results of test burn, and operating condition monitoring practice.

Safeguards Measures

The actual performance and effectiveness of a dis-posal technology is a function of its capability and its implementation, including controls, procedures, organizational arrangements and external stakehold-er relationships. Best practice requirements applied to technology implementation are called “safeguard measures” for purposes of this work. Safeguard measures provide assurance that the disposal tech-nology selected will be implemented as proposed and will perform as expected. GEF-financed projects should include the following:

National Regulatory Control System. A regulatory system, supported by legislation, at least potentially consistent with international practice and guidance, should be in place. This includes demonstrated government oversight and enforcement, whether disposal is taking place inside or outside the benefi-ciary country. Disposal arrangements must explicitly demonstrate compliance with Basel Guidelines Parts IV.A.1 and IV.B.2. POPs wastes above the low con-tent level should be classified as hazardous waste for purposes of regulatory control. Regulations should require identification, labeling, registration and status reporting of POPs containing equipment and specify the types of containers, storage areas, transportation practice, acceptable sampling, analytical methods and safety procedures for each POP waste. A func-tioning environmental assessment and permitting system must be in place as well.

National Inventory of POPs Stockpiles and Waste. A comprehensive inventory of POPs wastes and POPs-containing equipment is needed. It should be current (beyond the initial NIP) and compliant with Convention reporting requirements (Section 3). Ideally, the national inventory should also cover POPs-contaminated sites and sources of unintended POPs release, integrated with a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) system and a broader chemicals management program.


National Implementation Plan. An endorsed NIP must be on file with the Convention9; however, it should be viewed as a living document and updated periodically.

Custody, Ownership and Liability. Legal custody and ownership of POPs stockpiles and wastes, inclusive of rights of access, must be clear. Similar clarity should exist with respect to financial liability for disposal, any environmental damage that may occur in the process or as a result of it, and any applicable monitoring and site closure requirements. In the absence of validated clarity the government should assume the default liability.

Environmental Assessment and Permitting. Disposal facilities, domestic or foreign must be specifically permitted for the disposal activities pro-posed. This includes an internationally benchmarked environmental assessment (EA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP). An EMP would include regular performance evaluations validating compli-ance with permits and monitoring of POPs releases via analytical capability accredited to recognized standards. The World Bank provides an example of safeguards-oriented EA and EMP (World Bank, 1999) requirements which might be bolstered by an environmental management system (EMS) such as ISO 14000 (ISO, 2011).

Environmental Performance Demonstration. In many cases, technologies are screened and selected on the basis of past evaluations of facilities analo-gous to those proposed; however, such demonstra-tions may be based upon destruction of other POPs, in other forms or other concentration from those anticipated for the proposed facility. The “gold stan-dard” for evaluation is demonstrated environmental performance by a facility operating according to the anticipated conditions, and is preferred. Where an existing facility is proposed to receive candidate wastes, selection should be based on documented performance. Where a new facility is involved, trials should be conducted during development, dem-onstrating compliance with environmental perfor-mance criteria. In either case, periodic monitoring of performance should be undertaken with lot-by-lot

certification documentation of performance and fate of all residues and releases.

Public participation, consultation and disclosure. Public participation is a basic obligation and prin-ciple in the Convention (Article 10) with general guidance on it is provided in Part K of the Basel Guidelines. GEF supports the inherent right of the public and external stakeholders to timely access to information about POPs stockpile and waste dispos-al and to provide input on preparatory activities as-sociated with the capture, transportation and secure storage of POPs stockpiles and wastes, as well as the fate and impact of releases and residues.

Thus, any facility, whether existing or proposed, must have a public participation, consultation and disclo-sure program. This program, including operating practices, emissions performance and decommission, if applicable, is a joint responsibility of the proponent organization and the authorities. The various tools include public hearings and meetings, media public-ity, information brochures and documentation, and public access to project documentation in hard copy and electronic form. The government should moni-tor and facilitate public participation consistent with the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public, Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (UNECE, 1998), or equivalent.

Health, safety and emergency response plans. Health and safety protection plans for workers and potentially exposed members of the public are required. The geographical extent of such plans should be determined by public concern and risk assessment methods. Health monitoring specifically related to potential impacts of exposure to POPs should be applied to workers; plants should be de-signed to avoid meaningful exposure to the public. Emergency response plans covering accidents and upset conditions must be in place. Specific guidance on the scope and content of these plans is provided in Sections I and J of the Basel guidelines along with international references.

9. It has generally been assumed that this is an eligibility condition for GEF funding although some flexibility has been provided where endorsement and submission is pending.


Commercial Viability A successful POPs disposal project not only re-quires environmentally sound technology, but also a commercial arrangement that provides for disposal reliably at a predictable and affordable cost, and with assured completion. It must do so utilizing the available local supporting infrastructure, human resources and institutional and regulatory frame-work. This is most easily achieved by collaboration of the technology vendor, operating licensee and a local partnership with whom a viable commercial agreement can be negotiated. Experience shows that commercial viability rather than technical and

environmental performance is the main barrier to practical application of POPs disposal technologies in developing countries and CEITs. Said another way, despite GEF funding, where stable business and financial relationships are ab-sent, the GEF investment may not result in any POPs disposal and the continuing risk of POPs release. Even if successfully implemented, a poor commer-cial arrangement under financial pressure can lead to compromised environmental performance and circumvention of required safeguards.


Examples of possible commercial arrangements where GEF financing could be involved include:

i) Reimbursement of Direct Disposal Costs. GEF financing is applied to actual disposal costs charged by a qualified commercial service provider offering environmentally sound dis-posal technology and the operational capacity to implement it. This will typically be provided on turnkey, unit cost basis, and be selected on a cost-competitive basis10. This is appropriate where wastes are directed to existing qualified domestic or foreign facilities or to a facility at an advanced stage of development using non-GEF financing.

ii) Contribution to New Disposal Facility Capital Development Costs. GEF financing could form a portion of the capital investment in new disposal facilities employing established fully commercialized technology in a developing country or CEIT for subsequent purposes of POPs disposal.

iii) Acquisition, Development and/or Demonstration of Disposal Technology. GEF could also con-tribute to acquisition of commercial technolo-gies and their demonstration in the recipient country. Similarly, financing demonstration of a technology under development and/or commer-cialization within a recipient country might be proposed.

In general, the GEF objectives of maximizing the quantity of POPs eliminated (i.e. immediate global environmental benefit) and cost effectiveness, will be best achieved under the first scenario listed above; and ultimately, in the near term, may be where its resources are focused, recognizing this entails the least risk and greatest compatibility with the time frames dictated by the GEF project cycle. However, the GEF also has objectives related to facilitating technology transfer to developing countries and CEITs, hence the possibility of the

second and third scenarios above. In both cases, it is prudent for GEF to approach such interven-tions cautiously, particularly noting higher risks and potentially longer time periods before concrete results are achievable.

GEF financing of capital investment in new disposal facilities should only be done selectively based on demonstrated country need and/or particular risk avoidance. GEF financing could assist as leverage to supplement a financing package where the majority of financing is committed by other credible funding sources. In such cases, the GEF may want to con-sider targeting its contribution to specific aspects such as qualification of the facility and technology such that it meets international standards or spe-cific incremental components required to do so. It may also want to focus its contributions on facility development having broader national or regional application. In general, the GEF should avoid being the “the first money in” in such cases.

Notwithstanding the legitimate GEF objectives related to technology transfer, it should be recog-nized that technology acquisition is essentially a commercial business decision by its proponents within a country, and those proponents should lead the financing. Development and/or demonstration of technologies involve significant risks, potentially open-ended cost exposure, and uncertain time frames. For this reason, only such projects dem-onstrating technical, environmental and safeguard characteristics, as well as stable and sustainable business arrangements should be undertaken. Economic risk mitigation options include assurance of significant levels of co-financing, avoidance of large upfront financial exposure, and phasing of project activities. Similarly, such initiatives might focus on demonstrating smaller-scale and lower-cost technologies applicable to pre-treatment of POPs stockpiles and wastes, or demonstrations of site re-mediation exhibiting unique challenges and involv-ing high environmental and health risk.

10. Recognizing that hazardous waste disposal has often been subsidized in developed countries, application of subsidies by national governments or waste generators to utilize locally qualified facilities could occur as matter of local policy, but the GEF funding should generally remain limited to a reasonable level based on what may be commercially available.


In any event, the justification for both direct capital investment in facility development, and technol-ogy transfer/ acquisition interventions should be clear in terms of global, as opposed to strictly local benefits. Such global benefits might include replica-tion potential or utilization as regional infrastructure. Similarly, such a justification should include cost comparisons with alternatives such as using exist-ing domestic or available external facilities em-ploying qualified environmentally sound disposal technology.

An assessment of the commercial viability of any proposed POPs disposal technology should include:

• Thedegreetowhichthetechnologyis,orcanbe made, available as a complete commercial offering applicable to the POPs stockpile and disposal requirement at the selected location and at reliability capped cost, inclusive of any set up, pre-treatment, training and operational supervi-sion required, and with appropriate performance guarantees and monitoring.

• Theleveloftechnologymaturityinthemarketplace, its availability free of any dispute over technology ownership or licensee rights, its be-ing offered by a commercial entity with a dem-onstrated relevant track record, technical support capacity and financial strength to undertake the proposed work, inclusive of the necessary local partnership arrangements, where applicable.

• Strengthoflocalpartnerships,whereinvolved,measured in terms of relevant technical/opera-tional experience and financial capacity, and po-tentially including backstopping by government to ensure the sustainability of local arrangements and completion of the disposal works.


5. Overview of Available Disposal Technologies

This section identifies and categorizes a number of available POPs disposal technologies that potential-ly meet technical and environmental performance requirements, and safeguard measures, as identified above. Appendix 2 provides an indicative candidate list of such technologies, from which a selection for purposes of screening might be made, followed by a more detailed comparative technical, environmen-tal and commercial selection process. However, us-ers undertaking specific technology selection work should carefully validate the general and indicative information provided with the referenced documen-tation and candidate vendors themselves. It is also not intended to exclude any other technologies or variations of those identified that can demonstrate the above requirements. New technologies or modifications of current technologies offering both improved environmental performance and cost-ef-fectiveness will inevitably enter the market and may be considered.

In general, most of the technologies identified in Appendix 2 have been applied commercially, although in most cases not in developing countries or CEITs. The listed candidate disposal technologies generally encompass those identified in the Basel Guidelines, the 2004 GEF/STAP Report and other previously referenced technology reviews includ-ing the recent review by USEPA (USEPA, 2006). The principal ones are included in the Basel Convention and IHPA catalogues of technology specifications and data sheets (IHPA, 2011; Secretariat of the Basel Convention N.D.b). For the most part, this


list is applicable to technology options of applying the technology on-site or off site in relation to the location of the subject POPs stockpiles and waste, and in the case of off-site applications, deployment in the beneficiary country or at a facility elsewhere. In most cases, they may also have application beyond POPs disposal and could address broader hazardous/chemical waste treatment and disposal requirements.

In using this information, it should be understood that application of POPs disposal technologies can present unique challenges in developing countries and CEITs. Available disposal technologies generally involve complex equipment, sophisticated controls and processes involving definable risks. They often require extensive support infrastructure, such as a reliable power supply and other utilities, for safe and sustainable operation. These kinds of factors repre-sent potential barriers to application of technologies in developing countries and CEITs, even though they are in commercial or pilot scale operation in developed countries. Depending on local infrastruc-ture, technical knowledge and expertise, it will be necessary to balance the general trend of increasing complexity associated with nominally higher perfor-mance technologies, with the situation in countries that may tend to favor simplicity to support their sustainability.

The list has been divided into four categories. The first three categories might be considered technolo-gies intended specifically for destruction/irreversible transformation. They are differentiated between reducing, closed and/or oxygen starved opera-tions (nominally non-combustion technologies), and oxidizing environments (nominally combus-tion technologies). The nominally non-combustion technologies are further differentiated between commercial and potentially commercial, noting that commercial viability should be validated for each specific application.

The last category applies to commercial pre-treat-ment technologies to separate and concentrate POPs for destruction/irreversible transformation. These technologies involve relatively sophisticated design and equipment. Other more common waste

pre-treatment techniques may also be integrated into the primary pre-treatment and destruction/irre-versible transformation technologies.

Appendix 2 does not include post-treatment dis-posal technologies typically applied to destruction residues that exceed the low-POPs concentration, nor to circumstances where destruction or irrevers-ible transformation is not an environmentally sound option. For GEF recipient countries, an acceptable strategy is most often the provision of secure transi-tional storage until destruction capacity is available, rather than permanent land disposal in engineered landfills or underground mines and formations.

Solidification/stabilization techniques might apply as post-treatment technology to add containment assurance for disposal of low-POPs content waste or residuals, although engineered landfills are currently the preferred containment for such material, particu-larly if enhanced by passive biological processes.

Neither does Appendix 2 include biological, photo-chemical and phytoremediation technologies. While all these show promise and may have application as part of a menu of technologies, none is deemed mature enough as a process for inclusion herein. They could, however, be applied in combination with direct disposal technologies for bulk residual soil or waste solids after segregation from higher concentration POPs, or have application as a post treatment technology. Similarly, they may apply as a completion step where secure landfills are used for immediate containment. As the GEF may increas-ingly address POPs contaminated sites in the future, STAP may wish to consider a more detailed assess-ment of these types of technologies in the context of site remediation.

The technologies listed range from those provided by a sole vendor to those offered by multiple ven-dors in various configurations on a proprietary basis. Finally, it includes generic, well-established, widely available technologies replicable by experienced practitioners such that any potential end user could choose to adopt and develop facilities using them.


6. Disposal Technology Selection Process and the GEF Project Cycle

Technology selection will generally involve two stages. The first is a screening stage where a dis-posal technology is assessed on a coarse inclusion/exclusion basis. This should result in a short list of technologies anticipated to meet the stipulations of Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Where it is to be applied in a GEF-beneficiary country, screening should also include assessment of the practicality of applica-tion under conditions prevailing in that country. The second stage is a detailed comparative assessment of technical and commercial proposals solicited for a site-specific application.

In the screening process, minimum performance standards can be assessed based on published and vendor-supplied information, to validate that requirements for such parameters as: DE; low-POPs content of residues and unintended releases; and management of residues and by-products, are achievable in the particular application. At this stage, a country may also apply exclusions dictated by national policy to classes of technology, such as exclusion applied to combustion technologies11.

11. It is recommended that GEF’s position on this be entirely neu-tral given its recommendation that selection be environmental performance based.


It may also consider domestic policy regarding ap-plication of the technology on-site (i.e. brought to the location of a specific POPs stockpile) or off-site, in either the GEF recipient country or elsewhere. If an exclusively in-country option is selected, the comparative analysis should include cost-compar-ison with export, and practical consideration of local support infrastructure, pre-treatment capacity, utility/consumables availability, and human re-sources, all of which may narrow the siting options. It may also include evaluation of the need for a technology demonstration step. Similarly, broader policy decisions related to development plans for general hazardous waste management infrastruc-ture and stimulation of technology transfer should be covered. The screening stage should cover the probability of commercial viability being achieved, according to the criteria cited above.

The second stage of the technology selection process is a formal evaluation of proposals solicited from short-listed vendors/service providers and specific to a POPs stockpile and waste application. This should include technical, execution and commercial proposal com-ponents, and if required, proposals related to technol-ogy transfer. The basis for such proposals should be a comprehensive technical specification setting out the application requirements and conditions, and scope of work to be undertaken. The evaluation should involve

well-defined decision factors and weightings based on expert judgment. Initially, this stage should verify the qualification results from the first screening stage. Where the application is deemed to require a dem-onstration step, it should include a proposal for the demonstration independent of a final commitment for its full scale application.

For GEF financed projects, the screening stage could be completed prior to the project’s preparation stage, and be included with the Project Identification Form (PIF) submitted for entry of a project into the GEF work program. However, in many cases formal screening may occur during the project’s detailed preparation stage, with results presented in the Implementing Agency’s Project Document and Request for CEO Endorsement. The second stage (development of detailed specifications and formal solicitation/evaluation of proposals from short-listed vendors) might also be undertaken in whole or in part during detailed project preparation. However, the final selection of technologies and/or service provid-ers could also be part of the competitive procure-ment process applied by the Implementing Agency and GEF beneficiary during project implementation. The complexity of final selection will vary depending on the specific application, commercial approach, the need for technology demonstration and inclusion of technology transfer provisions.


7. Recommendations and Conclusions

The principal findings of this work in relation to the selection of disposal technology applied to POPs stockpiles and waste in the context of GEF financed projects are:

• Technicalandenvironmentalqualifica-tion of POPs disposal technology should be performance-based.

• Theevaluationofsafeguardsprovisionsandcommercial viability should also be included in the selection process.

• DevelopingcountriesandCEITsshouldnotbeheld to higher standards than those accepted in developed countries.

• DisposalisonlypartofthePOPsmanagementprocess and must be integrated with steps in-volving some or all of capture, containment, se-cure storage, pre-treatment, transport, and post disposal residuals management/monitoring.

• Economiesofscaleshouldbeconsideredinanydecision to build new or use existing facilities.

• IntegrationofPOPsdisposalrequirementswiththose required for environmentally sound chemi-cal/hazardous waste management should like-wise be considered as part of broader national or regional infrastructure development.

• InventoriesofPOPsstockpilesandwastesub-ject to disposal should be prioritized in terms of POPs concentration and risk of release to optimize the GEF interventions global environ-mental benefit and cost effectiveness.

• EnvironmentallysounddisposalofPOPsisnot generally limited by availability of suitable


technology, but rather by the current cost-effec-tiveness and commercial maturity of the avail-able technologies. This is particularly true when considering application in developing countries and CEITs where implementation and financial risks are generally higher.

• PrimaryEnvironmentalPerformancerequire-ments recommended are:– Current Basel Guidelines should apply.– As a general principle, levels of POPs de-

struction and irreversible transformation should consider all POPs in waste output streams of a technology.

– POPs destruction efficiency (DE) applicable to the originating POPs should be >99.99% with Destruction Removal Efficiency (DRE) >99.9999% as a supplemental requirement, particularly in relation to POPs release to air.

– Low POPs content as specified in the current Basel Guidelines should apply as an upper limit for residuals.

– Unintended release limits should be set at nominal developed country standards; i.e., 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3, for PCDD/PCDF air emissions.

• SpecificationofBAT/BEPfordesignandoperat-ing conditions on a technology-specific basis, where practical. While the highest overall de-struction efficiency possible is preferable, where large amounts of POPs require disposal and financial capacity is limited, the actual volume of POPs eliminated and associated global envi-ronmental benefit may be maximized by use of a lower cost option that achieves the minimum DE, rather than a higher cost option that greatly exceeds the minimum DE.

• Safeguardmeasuresareneededtoassureim-plementation and achievement of performance as specified: – Institutional/regulatory commitment and

capacity for oversight and enforcement.– Linkage to a national POPs inventory and

endorsed NIP, regularly maintained and updated.

– Undisputed legal custody and ownership of stockpiles and wastes with attendant financial responsibility.

– Credible environmental assessment and per-mitting process.

– Environmental performance demonstration.– Provision for operational monitoring of per-

formance and tracking of POPs from acquisi-tion to final disposition.

– Public participation, consultation and disclosure.

– Health, safety and emergency response plans.

• Anevaluationofcommercialviabilityandsus-tainability should be applied in the selection of POPs disposal technology including consider-ation of:– Availability of the commercial offering at pre-

dictable and competitive cost, inclusive of set up, pre-treatment, training and operational supervision, including appropriate perfor-mance guarantees.

– Technology maturity in the market place.– Technology ownership or licensee rights.– Capacity of vendor/operator in terms of rel-

evant track record, technical support capac-ity and financial strength to undertake the proposed work.

– Local partner capability, including relevant technical/operational experience and finan-cial capacity, as applicable.

– Backstopping in the form of completion guarantees, as applicable.

• GEFfinancingmayconsideri)directfundingofdisposal costs based on an all inclusive com-petitive price offered by a service provider with qualified disposal capability; ii) contribution to new disposal facility development costs; or iii) supporting technology transfer through acquisi-tion and demonstration.

• Inconsideringtheabove,abalanceneedstobestruck between the GEF objectives associated with maximizing the quantity of POPs eliminated (i.e. immediate global environmental benefit) in the near term as obtained through direct funding of disposal costs, and the objective of facilitating technology transfer and develop-ment of local infrastructure where completion, cost and timing risks are inherently greater, and POPs elimination is less in the near term.


Appendix 1

Summary Analysis of GEF POPs Funding to the End of GEF-4No. of

Projects

Commitments (Million US$)

GEF Co-Financing Total

Overall GEF Portfolio 219 412.2 666.5 1,078.7

Enabling Activities Portfolio 134 69.0 24.4 93.4

Country Specific Projects 133 63.2 21.3 84.5

Project less than US$0.5 million 130 54.3 5.8 60.1

Large Country Projects 3 8.9 15.5 24.4

Regional/Global Projects 1 5.8 3.1 8.9

NIP Implementation Portfolio 85 343.2 642.2 985.4

Country Specific 52 248.5 512.9 761.3

Regional/Global 33 94.6 129.2 223.8

Projects on Alternatives 7 44.4 55.7 100.1

Projects on Medical Waste 3 32.0 76.7 108.7

Projects on Unintended Releases 5 10.8 24.5 35.3

Projects on NIP Implementation Support/Capacity Building 22 37.5 45.4 82.9

Projects Including POPs Stockpile/Waste Disposal 47 215.8 433.2 649.0

Analysis of POPs Stockpile/Waste Disposal Project Scope

Projects Undertaking Technology Selection Studies 28

Projects Selecting/Favoring Combustion Technology 19

Projects Selecting/Favoring Non-Combustion Technology 7

Projects with No Stated Technology Preference 15

Projects Based on Export for Disposal 24

Projects based on In-Country Disposal 18

Projects including Pre-Treatment 24


Ap

pen

dix

2

Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

1. C

omm

erci

al D

estr

uctio

n/Irr

ever

sib

le T

rans

form

atio

n Te

chno

log

ies

Op

erat

ing

in R

educ

ing

, Clo

sed

, and

/or

Star

ved

Oxy

gen

Env

ironm

ents

Alk

ali M

etal

/M

etal

Hyd

roxi

de

Red

uctio

n (S

odiu

m

Red

uctio

n,

A-P

EG)14

,15

•PC

B t

rans

form

ers

(in-s

itu)

•PC

B c

onta

min

ated

oi

ls (<

10,0

00 p

pm

)•

PCB

con

tam

inat

ed

soils

•C

apac

itors

/Bal

last

s•

POPs

pes

ticid

es

and

PC

DD

/PC

DF

cont

amin

ated

m

ater

ials

•PC

B O

il U

S$0.

5-0.

7/kg

•M

iner

al O

il U

$0.2

/kg

•So

ils $

US

0.2-

0.5/

kg•

Cap

acito

rs

US$

5.10

/kg

•B

alla

sts

US$

1.10

/kg

•D

ewat

erin

g (m

itig

ate

risk

of

exp

losi

ve re

actio

n)•

Con

tam

inat

ed s

oils

req

uire

p

re-t

reat

men

t b

y th

erm

al o

r so

lven

t ex

trac

tion.

•Re

-tre

atm

ent

of t

rans

form

-er

s w

here

leac

h b

ack

from

in

tern

als

occu

rs.

•Tr

ansf

orm

er in

tern

als

req

uire

env

ironm

enta

lly

soun

d d

isp

osal

if e

qui

p-

men

t is

was

te

99.9

- 99.

999

99.9

999

•So

lid a

nd

liqui

d m

ater

i-al

s tr

eate

d t

o 0.

5-2

pp

m

•Fu

lly c

omm

erci

al a

nd w

ell e

stab

-lis

hed

with

mul

tiple

tec

hnol

ogy

vend

ors

and

sta

ble

lice

nsee

ar-

rang

emen

ts c

apab

le o

f com

pet

i-tiv

e te

nder

ing

wor

ldw

ide.

•Fi

xed

and

mob

ile fa

cilit

ies

pos

sib

le.

•Re

qui

re s

ecur

e in

fras

truc

ture

, tr

aine

d t

echn

ical

sta

ff, la

bor

ator

y su

pp

ort,

util

ities

and

re-a

gen

t su

pp

ly.

•M

oder

ate

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty b

ut

safe

ty r

isks

req

uire

miti

gat

ion

12.

Info

rmat

ion

bas

ed p

rimar

ily o

n th

e PO

Ps T

echn

olo

gy

Spec

ifica

tion

and

Dat

a Sh

eets

issu

ed o

r p

rovi

sio

nally

dev

elo

ped

by

the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n, IH

PA a

nd U

SEPA

per

foo

tno

ted

refe

renc

es e

xcep

t w

here

no

ted

.13

. C

ost

s ar

e re

pre

sent

ativ

e b

ased

on

liter

atur

e an

d v

end

or

ind

icat

ive

num

ber

s, a

nd w

ill v

ary

with

sp

ecifi

c ap

plic

atio

n an

d lo

catio

n.

14.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(N.D

.). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Alk

ali-M

etal

Rea

ctio

n. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df

15.

FRTR

(ND

). R

emed

iatio

n Te

chno

log

ies

Scre

enin

g M

atrix

and

Ref

eren

ce G

uid

e D

ehal

og

enat

ion.

Ava

ilab

le a

t: h

ttp

://w

ww

.frtr.

go

v/m

atrix

2/se

ctio

n4/4

-17.

htm

l


Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

Bas

e-ca

taly

zed

d

ecom

pos

ition

(B

CD

)16

•PC

Bs,

PO

Ps p

esti-

cid

es, P

CD

D in

soi

l, so

lid, s

lud

ge

and

liq

uid

s

•U

S$0.

7-2.

2/kg

d

epen

din

g o

n w

aste

•U

S$30

0/m

3 (S

oil)

•1.

4-1.

7 Eu

ro/

kg. (

2004

)

•PH

ad

just

men

t•

Moi

stur

e co

ntro

l•

Size

seg

reg

atio

n/ re

duc

tion

•Th

erm

al d

esor

ptio

n st

ep

prio

r to

tre

atm

ent.

•ES

M d

isp

osal

of t

reat

ed

mat

eria

l req

uire

d.

•C

hem

ical

ad

diti

ons

(sod

ium

hy

dro

xid

e)

99.9

9-99

.999

9>

99.9

999

•<

2 m

g/k

g

HC

B/

lind

ane

in s

oil

•<

3 m

g/k

g

PCC

D in

soi

l•

<60

mg

/kg

PC

CD

in

dem

oliti

on

was

te

•C

omm

erci

ally

ava

ilab

le t

hrou

gh

esta

blis

hed

tec

hnol

ogy

vend

or/

licen

see

arra

ngem

ents

.•

Seve

ral f

acili

ties

oper

atin

g

wor

ldw

ide.

•Su

itab

le fo

r es

tab

lishm

ent

in

man

y co

untr

ies

pro

vid

ed v

olum

es

just

ify s

upp

ortin

g h

igh

cap

ital c

ost

infr

astr

uctu

re.

•M

oder

ate

to h

igh

com

ple

xity

.G

as P

hase

C

hem

ical

Re

duc

tion

(GPC

R)17

•PC

Bs,

PO

Ps p

es-

ticid

es, P

CD

D in

sp

oil,

solid

, slu

dg

e an

d li

qui

ds.

•U

S$0.

4-2.

0/kg

(bas

ed o

n op

erat

ing

cos

t)•

Cap

ital c

ost

US$

5-10

mil-

lion

dep

end

ing

on

mob

ile o

r fix

ed

•Fo

r so

lids

req

uire

s th

erm

al

des

orp

tion

sep

arat

ion

prio

r to

tre

atm

ent.

>99

.999

9>

99.9

999

•N

o re

sid

ual

POPs

con

tent

or

rele

ases

no

ted

.

•D

emon

stra

ted

in p

ilot

and

sm

all

com

mer

cial

faci

litie

s in

dev

elop

ed

coun

trie

s.•

Fixe

d a

nd m

obile

con

figur

atio

ns

avai

lab

le.

•Re

qui

re s

ecur

e in

fras

truc

ture

, tr

aine

d t

echn

ical

sta

ff, la

bor

ator

y su

pp

ort,

util

ities

and

re-a

gen

t su

pp

ly.

•H

igh

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty in

clud

ing

sa

fe h

and

ling

of h

ydro

gen

.

16.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Bas

e ca

taly

zed

dec

om

po

sitio

n. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df

17.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Gas

-pha

se c

hem

ical

red

uctio

n. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df


Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

Plas

ma

Arc

18,1

9 •

PCB

s, P

OPs

pes

ti-ci

des

, PC

DD

in s

oil,

solid

, slu

dg

e an

d

liqui

ds

•U

S$0.

5 to

3.0

/kg

•U

S$1.

0 m

illio

n fo

r 15

0 kW

uni

t

•Fo

r so

lids

req

uire

s th

erm

al

des

orp

tion

sep

arat

ion

prio

r to

tre

atm

ent.

•ES

M d

isp

osal

of t

reat

ed

mat

eria

l req

uire

d.

>99

.999

9n/

a•

<0.

5mg

/l

POPs

in li

qui

d

efflu

ent

•<

1 ng

/m3

POPs

in a

ir.•

<0.

1 ng

PC

DD

TE

Q/N

m3

•So

lidifi

ed

resi

dua

ls g

en-

eral

ly m

eet

leac

hate

lim

its

•C

omm

erci

ally

ava

ilab

le t

echn

ol-

ogy

with

a n

umb

er o

f op

erat

ing

fa

cilit

ies

in d

evel

oped

cou

ntrie

s.•

Tech

nolo

gy

vend

ors

with

sta

ble

lic

ense

e ar

rang

emen

ts c

apab

le o

f co

mp

etiti

ve t

end

erin

g w

orld

wid

e.•

Fixe

d a

nd m

obile

faci

litie

s p

oten

-tia

lly a

vaila

ble

.•

Req

uire

sec

ure

infr

astr

uctu

re,

trai

ned

tec

hnic

al s

taff,

lab

orat

ory

sup

por

t an

d u

tiliti

es a

nd re

-ag

ent

sup

ply

.•

Hig

h le

vel o

f com

ple

xity

.

Pyro

lysi

s/

Gas

ifica

tion

•PC

Bs,

PO

Ps p

es-

ticid

es, P

CD

D in

so

il, s

olid

, slu

dg

e an

d li

qui

ds

(in

prin

cip

le)

•U

S$0.

75 –

1.

00/k

g (B

ased

on

op

erat

ing

co

sts)

•U

S$27

5-50

0/m

3 (So

ils)

•Lo

w m

oist

ure

cont

ent

req

uire

d -

dry

ing

•ES

M d

isp

osal

of t

reat

ed

mat

eria

l req

uire

d.

•H

igh

ener

gy

cost

s

99.9

7499

.999

9•

Cla

imed

to

mee

t U

S/EU

em

issi

on a

nd

dis

pos

al li

mits

•C

omm

erci

al u

nits

from

a n

umb

er

of t

echn

olog

y ve

ndor

s b

ut li

mite

d

app

licat

ion

to P

OPs

was

tes.

•Su

bje

ct t

o d

emon

stra

tion

of s

tab

le

licen

see

arra

ngem

ents

sho

uld

be

cap

able

of c

omp

etiti

ve t

end

erin

g

wor

ldw

ide.

•Fi

xed

and

mob

ile fa

cilit

ies

pot

en-

tially

ava

ilab

le.

•Re

qui

re s

ecur

e in

fras

truc

ture

, tr

aine

d t

echn

ical

sta

ff, la

bor

ator

y su

pp

ort

and

util

ities

and

re-a

gen

t su

pp

ly.

•H

igh

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty.

•M

oder

ate

pow

er c

onsu

mp

tion

with

relia

ble

wat

er a

nd e

lect

rical

su

pp

ly.

18.

For

pur

po

ses

of t

his

wo

rk, P

lasm

a ar

c te

chno

log

ies

are

tho

se w

here

org

anic

des

truc

tion

occ

urs

with

in t

he a

rc it

self

whi

le a

num

ber

of t

echn

olo

gie

s ca

lled

Pyr

oly

sis/

Gas

ifica

tion

invo

lve

a p

lasm

a ar

c b

ut

des

truc

tion

resu

lts fr

om

the

hea

t g

ener

ated

by

the

arc,

gen

eral

ly a

t lo

wer

tem

per

atur

e 19

. Se

cret

aria

t o

f the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n (N

.D.).

Des

truc

tion

and

Dec

ont

amin

atio

n Te

chno

log

ies

for

PCB

s an

d o

ther

PO

Ps W

aste

s un

der

the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n. A

Tra

inin

g M

anua

l fo

r H

azar

do

us W

aste

Pro

ject

M

anag

er. V

olu

me

C. P

lasm

a A

rc. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df


18.

For

pur

po

ses

of t

his

wo

rk, P

lasm

a ar

c te

chno

log

ies

are

tho

se w

here

org

anic

des

truc

tion

occ

urs

with

in t

he a

rc it

self

whi

le a

num

ber

of t

echn

olo

gie

s ca

lled

Pyr

oly

sis/

Gas

ifica

tion

invo

lve

a p

lasm

a ar

c b

ut

des

truc

tion

resu

lts fr

om

the

hea

t g

ener

ated

by

the

arc,

gen

eral

ly a

t lo

wer

tem

per

atur

e 19

. Se

cret

aria

t o

f the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n (N

.D.).

Des

truc

tion

and

Dec

ont

amin

atio

n Te

chno

log

ies

for

PCB

s an

d o

ther

PO

Ps W

aste

s un

der

the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n. A

Tra

inin

g M

anua

l fo

r H

azar

do

us W

aste

Pro

ject

M

anag

er. V

olu

me

C. P

lasm

a A

rc. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df

Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

Mec

hano

chem

ical

Pr

inci

ple

(M

echa

noch

emic

al

Deh

alog

enat

ion,

M

echa

noch

emic

al

Con

vers

ion,

H

igh

Ener

gy

Bal

l M

illin

g)20

,21,

22

•PO

Ps c

onta

mi-

nate

d s

oils

(DD

T,

chlo

rdan

e, P

CD

D,

PCB

s)•

Pote

ntia

lly P

OPs

co

ntai

ning

liq

uid

s an

d s

olid

s.

•U

S$20

0-50

0/m

3 (So

ils u

sing

ED

L M

CD

un

its)

•C

apita

l cos

t U

S$2-

6 m

illio

n d

epen

din

g o

n ve

ndor

•Pr

imar

ily fo

r co

ntam

inat

ed

soils

•W

aste

pac

kag

ed in

sm

all

cont

aine

rs.

•So

me

confi

gur

atio

ns

req

uire

de-

wat

erin

g a

nd

par

ticle

siz

e re

duc

tion

•N

eed

s ch

emic

al in

put

s (i.

e.

hyd

rog

en, m

agne

sium

, so

diu

m)

99.9

9 -

99.9

9999

.999

9•

Ass

essm

ent

req

uire

d fo

r se

cond

ary

emis

sion

s an

d

efflu

ent

con-

tain

ed in

the

cl

osed

sys

tem

•A

n em

erg

ing

tec

hnol

ogy

with

pilo

t an

d li

mite

d c

omm

erci

al a

pp

lica-

tion

to d

ate.

•

Pote

ntia

lly a

rela

tivel

y si

mp

le, c

ost

effe

ctiv

e te

chno

log

y in

dev

elop

ing

co

untr

ies

in s

ome

confi

gur

atio

ns.

Geo

Mel

tTM23

•

PCB

s, P

OPs

pes

ti-ci

des

, PC

DD

con

-ta

min

ated

soi

ls o

r g

ranu

late

d s

olid

s

•U

S$20

0-50

0/m

3 (so

ils)

•B

atch

mix

ing

.•

Dew

ater

ing

/dry

ing

•O

ff g

as e

mis

sion

con

trol

re

qui

red

•ES

M d

isp

osal

of t

reat

ed

mat

eria

l req

uire

d.

90 t

o 99

.99

99.9

9-99

.999

9 (w

ith o

ff g

as

trea

tmen

t)

•N

eglig

ible

ai

r em

issi

on

clai

med

.•

Solid

ified

re

sid

uals

gen

-er

ally

mee

t le

acha

te li

mits

•C

omm

erci

al o

per

atin

g fa

cilit

ies

in

a nu

mb

er o

f dev

elop

ed c

ount

ries.

•Re

qui

re s

ecur

e in

fras

truc

ture

, tr

aine

d t

echn

ical

sta

ff, la

bor

ator

y su

pp

ort

and

util

ities

and

re-a

gen

t su

pp

ly.

•Te

chno

log

y ve

ndor

with

sta

ble

lic

ense

e ar

rang

emen

ts c

apab

le o

f co

mp

etiti

ve t

end

erin

g w

orld

wid

e.•

Hig

h p

ower

con

sum

ptio

n.•

Hig

h le

vel o

f com

ple

xity

.2.

Nea

r/Po

tent

ial C

omm

erci

al D

estr

uctio

n/Irr

ever

sib

le D

estr

uctio

n Te

chno

log

ies

Op

erat

ing

in R

educ

ing

, Clo

sed

, and

/or

Star

ved

Oxy

gen

Env

ironm

ents

Med

iate

d

Elec

troc

hem

ical

O

xid

atio

n

•PC

Bs,

PO

Ps

pes

ticid

es, P

CC

D

was

tes

in li

qui

d o

r sl

urry

form

•N

ot a

vaila

ble

•W

aste

pre

par

atio

n to

mee

t fe

ed re

qui

rem

ents

.>

99.9

95n/

a•

Neg

ligib

le in

th

eory

.•

Req

uire

s as

sess

men

t

•Pi

lot

scal

e te

chno

log

y ye

t to

be

fully

dem

onst

rate

d o

r co

mm

erci

aliz

ed.

•H

igh

use

of e

nerg

y an

d

cons

umab

les.

•H

igh

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty.

20.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Rad

ical

pla

net

Tech

nolo

g. M

echa

noch

emic

al P

rinci

ple

. Ava

ilab

le a

t: h

ttp

://c

op

10.b

asel

.int/

Port

als/

4/B

asel

%20

Co

nven

tion/

do

cs/m

eetin

gs/

sbc/

wo

rkd

oc/

TM-C

%20

Ann

exes

.pd

f21

. Se

cret

aria

t o

f the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n (N

D).

Des

truc

tion

and

Dec

ont

amin

atio

n Te

chno

log

ies

for

PCB

s an

d o

ther

PO

Ps W

aste

s un

der

the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n. A

Tra

inin

g M

anua

l fo

r H

azar

do

us W

aste

Pro

ject

M

anag

er. V

olu

me

C. M

echa

noch

emic

al D

ehal

og

enat

ion.

Ava

ilab

le a

t: h

ttp

://c

op

10.b

asel

.int/

Port

als/

4/B

asel

%20

Co

nven

tion/

do

cs/m

eetin

gs/

sbc/

wo

rkd

oc/

TM-C

%20

Ann

exes

.pd

f 22

. U

SEPA

(201

0). R

efer

ence

Gui

de

to N

on-

com

bus

tion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r R

emed

iatio

n o

f Per

sist

ent

Org

anic

Po

lluta

nts

in S

oil.

Sec

ond

Ed

itio

n. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/ww

w.c

lu-in

.org

/do

wnl

oad

/rem

ed/P

OPs

_Re-

po

rt_F

inal

EPA

_Sep

t201

0.p

df

23.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Geo

Mel

t. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df


Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

Mol

ten

Salt

Oxi

dat

ion

•PC

Bs,

PC

B c

on-

tam

inat

ed s

olid

, C

hlor

dan

e in

tra

ils

•U

S$1.

0-1.

5/kg

(e

stim

ated

)•

Was

te p

rep

arat

ion

to s

uit

pro

cess

uni

t co

nfig

urat

ion

>99

.999

9>

99.9

999

•Re

qui

res

asse

ssm

ent

•Pi

lot/

lab

orat

ory

scal

e te

chno

log

y re

qui

ring

com

mer

cial

sca

le d

em-

onst

ratio

n. O

n a

bro

ader

ran

ge

of

POPs

•A

vaila

bili

ty o

f sta

ble

lice

nsee

ar

rang

emen

ts c

apab

le o

f com

pet

i-tiv

e te

nder

ing

unc

erta

in.

•H

igh

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty.

Solv

ated

Ele

ctro

n24 •

PCB

s, P

OPs

pes

ti-ci

des

, PC

DD

in s

oil,

solid

, slu

dg

e an

d

liqui

ds

•N

ot a

vaila

ble

•D

ewat

erin

g•

Was

te s

ize

red

uctio

n99

.999

(PC

B

Oils

)N

ot a

vaila

ble

•Re

qui

res

asse

ssm

ent

•C

omm

erci

al s

cale

op

erat

ion

plu

s p

ilot

oper

atio

ns•

Hig

h le

vel o

f com

ple

xity

.

Sup

ercr

itica

l wat

er

oxid

atio

n (S

CW

O)25

•

PCB

s, C

hlor

dan

e,

PCD

D, P

CD

F.•

Liq

uid

and

slu

rrie

s w

ith <

20%

or-

gan

ic c

onte

nt, a

nd

par

ticle

siz

e un

der

20

0um

•Ve

ndor

rep

orts

ca

pab

ility

for

100%

or

gan

ic c

onte

nt

•C

apita

l cos

ts

US$

1.2-

1.5

mill

ion

•W

aste

pre

par

atio

n to

mee

t fe

ed re

qui

rem

ents

.98

.7-9

9.8

Vend

or re

-p

orts

hig

her

DE

pot

entia

l

>99

.999

9•

Req

uire

s as

sess

men

t•

Spec

ializ

ed c

omm

erci

al p

lant

s op

-er

atin

g in

a n

umb

er o

f dev

elop

ed

coun

trie

s.•

Rem

ains

und

er e

valu

atio

n an

d

dem

onst

ratio

n fo

r m

ore

gen

eral

PO

Ps a

pp

licat

ions

.•

Tech

nolo

gy

vend

or w

ith s

tab

le

licen

see

arra

ngem

ents

tha

t sh

ould

b

e ca

pab

le o

f com

pet

itive

ten

der

-in

g w

orld

wid

e.•

Hig

h le

vel o

f com

ple

xity

.Th

erm

al R

etor

ting

•Pr

imar

ily P

OPs

co

ntam

inat

ed

soils

and

ob

sole

te

pes

ticid

es.

•U

S$0.

75-1

.82/

kg

•Th

erm

al d

esor

ptio

n b

uilt

into

pro

cess

.•

ESM

dis

pos

al o

f tre

ated

m

ater

ial r

equi

red

.

99.9

999

n/a

•PC

DD

Air

emis

sion

s <

0.

01 n

g T

EQ/

m3

•D

emon

stra

ted

at

a re

lativ

ely

smal

l sc

ale

faci

lity

in c

omm

erci

al q

uant

i-tie

s of

PO

Ps c

onta

min

ated

soi

ls.

•Po

tent

ial f

or s

tab

le c

omm

erci

al

arra

ngem

ents

sui

tab

le fo

r b

road

in

tern

atio

nal a

pp

licat

ion

exis

ts b

ut

stat

us u

ncer

tain

.•

Mod

erat

e le

vel o

f com

ple

xity

.

24.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. So

lvat

ed E

lect

ron

Tech

nolo

gy.

Ava

ilab

le a

t: h

ttp

://c

op

10.b

asel

.int/

Port

als/

4/B

asel

%20

Co

nven

tion/

do

cs/m

eetin

gs/

sbc/

wo

rkd

oc/

TM-C

%20

Ann

exes

.pd

f 25

. Se

cret

aria

t o

f the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n (N

D).

Des

truc

tion

and

Dec

ont

amin

atio

n Te

chno

log

ies

for

PCB

s an

d o

ther

PO

Ps W

aste

s un

der

the

Bas

el C

onv

entio

n. A

Tra

inin

g M

anua

l fo

r H

azar

do

us W

aste

Pro

ject

M

anag

er. V

olu

me

C. S

uper

criti

cal W

ater

Oxi

dat

ion.

Ava

ilab

le a

t: h

ttp

://c

op

10.b

asel

.int/

Port

als/

4/B

asel

%20

Co

nven

tion/

do

cs/m

eetin

gs/

sbc/

wo

rkd

oc/

TM-C

%20

Ann

exes

.pd

f


Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

Cop

per

Med

iate

d

Des

truc

tion

(CM

D)

•PC

Bs,

PO

Ps p

es-

ticid

es, P

CC

D/F

w

aste

s in

sol

id,

liqui

d a

nd g

aseo

us

form

•N

ot a

vaila

ble

•Si

ze re

duc

tion/

hom

ogen

i-za

tion

for

solid

s to

mee

t fe

ed re

qui

rem

ents

•Pr

elim

inar

y th

erm

al d

esor

p-

tion

in s

ome

app

licat

ions

99.0

to

99.9

99 d

e-p

end

ing

on

POPs

bas

ed

on s

olid

re

sid

ues

n/a

•N

eglig

ible

in

theo

ry•

Req

uire

s as

sess

men

t

•Pi

lot s

cale

tech

nolo

gy y

et to

be

fully

de

mon

stra

ted

or c

omm

erci

aliz

ed.

•M

obile

con

tain

eriz

ed b

asic

uni

t for

ba

tch

appl

icat

ion

cons

truc

ted

(10

m3 b

atch

cap

acity

, 1.2

5-2.

5 m

3 /hr

).•

Cla

imed

sca

le u

p po

tent

ial t

o 10

0 m

3

•En

erg

y an

d c

onsu

mab

les

not

wel

l d

efine

d.

•H

igh

leve

l of c

omp

lexi

ty.

•Com

mercialD

estruc

tion/Irrev

ersibleD

estruc

tionTe

chno

logiesOperatingin

Open

OxidizingEnv

ironm

ents

Cem

ent

Kiln

C

o-d

isp

osal

26•

PCB

s an

d P

OPs

p

estic

ide

was

tes

in li

qui

d a

nd s

olid

fo

rm

•U

S$1.

0-5.

0/kg

•Fa

cilit

y sp

ecifi

c.

•Sp

ecia

lized

siz

e re

duc

tion

and

inje

ctio

n m

easu

res.

•B

lend

ing

to

mee

t ch

lorin

e co

nten

t lim

itatio

ns o

n p

roce

ss

<99

.999

9<

99.9

999

•A

ir em

is-

sion

s <

0.1

ng

PCD

D-l/

m3

•C

omm

erci

al a

pp

licat

ion

in d

evel

-op

ed c

ount

ries

and

dem

onst

ra-

tions

in d

evel

opin

g c

ount

ries.

•G

ener

ally

lim

ited

to

rela

tivel

y m

oder

n ro

tary

kiln

uni

ts w

ith

over

all B

AT/

BET

env

ironm

enta

l p

erfo

rman

ce e

qui

pp

ed w

ith a

p-

pro

pria

te P

OPs

was

te h

and

ling

/in

ject

ion

infr

astr

uctu

re a

s w

ell a

s m

onito

ring

cap

acity

.•

Ap

plic

atio

n re

qui

res

case

by

case

as

sess

men

t an

d p

erfo

rman

ce

dem

onst

ratio

n.H

igh

Tem

per

atur

e In

cine

ratio

n (H

TI)27

•

All

POPs

was

tes

in

any

phy

sica

l for

m•

US$

0.1

-2.5

/kg

d

epen

din

g o

n w

aste

typ

e an

d

form

•D

epen

din

g o

n fa

cilit

y, s

ize

red

uctio

n, d

ewat

erin

g, a

nd

was

te b

lend

ing

.•

ESM

resi

due

dis

pos

al c

a-p

acity

req

uire

d.

99.8

8-99

.999

99.9

999

•A

ir em

is-

sion

s <

0.1

ng

PCD

D-l/

m3

•Lo

w d

isch

arg

-es

to

wat

er

efflu

ent.

•1,

500

ng

PCD

D T

EQ/

kg fo

r A

PC

resi

due

s.•

50 n

g P

CD

D

TEQ

/kg

ash

.

•Ex

tens

ive

com

mer

cial

ap

plic

atio

n on

dev

elop

ed c

ount

ries.

•H

igh

cap

ital a

nd o

per

atin

g c

osts

.•

Sop

hist

icat

ed e

mis

sion

con

trol

s an

d m

onito

ring

req

uire

d.

•Ec

onom

ies

of s

cale

>30

,000

t/

year

gen

eral

ly re

qui

red

for

dev

elop

men

t w

ith b

road

ap

plic

a-tio

n to

haz

ard

ous

org

anic

was

tes

gen

eral

ly.

•M

obile

/sem

i-mob

ile 2

-5,0

00 t

/yea

r ca

pac

ity a

vaila

ble

but

with

cos

t p

rem

ium

and

pot

entia

l env

iron-

men

tal p

erfo

rman

ce p

enal

ties.

26.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Cem

ent

Kiln

Co

-Pro

cess

ing

(Hig

h Te

mp

erat

ure

Trea

tmen

t). A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df

27.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Haz

ard

ous

Was

te In

cine

ratio

n. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df


Sum

mar

y C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f P

ote

ntia

lly A

pp

licab

le C

om

mer

cial

or

Nea

r C

om

mer

cial

PO

Ps

Dis

po

sal T

echn

olo

gie

s (D

estr

ucti

on/

Irre

vers

ible

Tra

nsfo

rmat

ion

and

Pre

-Tre

atm

ent)

Tech

nolo

gy12

Ap

plic

atio

nIn

dic

ativ

e C

ost13

Pre/

Post

Tre

atm

ent

Req

uire

men

tsR

epor

ted

D

E %

Rep

orte

d

DR

E %

Res

idue

PO

Ps

Rel

ease

Stat

e of

Com

mer

cial

izat

ion/

A

dap

tion

•C

omm

erci

al P

rimar

y Pr

e-Tr

eatm

ent

Tech

nolo

gie

sA

utoc

lavi

ng28

•

PCB

con

tam

inat

ed

equi

pm

ent.

•U

S$1-

1.5/

kg•

Cap

ital c

osts

of

US$

1 m

illio

n (M

obile

uni

t)

•Eq

uip

men

t d

rain

ing

/rin

sing

, d

ism

antli

ng, s

ize

red

uctio

n,

non

met

allic

sep

arat

ion

•En

viro

nmen

tally

sou

nd

Dis

pos

al o

f dra

ined

oils

, rin

sing

sol

vent

, non

-met

allic

co

mp

onen

ts

99.9

99n/

a•

Non

e fr

om

pro

cess

.•

Resi

dua

ls

req

uire

ESM

D

isp

osal

•Fu

lly c

omm

erci

al a

nd w

ell

esta

blis

hed

•Fi

xed

and

mob

ile fa

cilit

ies.

•2,

000

t re

qui

red

to

esta

blis

h fa

cilit

y.•

Acc

ess

to e

nviro

nmen

tally

sou

nd

dis

pos

al t

hrou

gh

exp

ort

or lo

cally

re

qui

red

.Th

erm

al

Des

orp

tion29

,30

•PC

B a

nd P

OPs

p

estic

ides

con

tam

i-na

ted

sol

ids.

•G

ener

ally

ap

plie

d

to s

oil.

•U

S$0.

1-0.

2/kg

•

US$

200-

600/

m3 (

soils

)

•M

ater

ials

han

dlin

g a

nd p

os-

sib

le d

e-w

ater

ing

.•

ESM

des

truc

tion

of re

cov-

ered

PO

Ps.

•ES

M t

reat

men

t/d

isp

osal

of

trea

ted

mat

eria

l dep

end

ing

on

rem

oval

rat

es a

chie

ved

.

n/a

Rem

oval

ra

tes

in

soils

of

95%

-99.

99%

99.9

999

(Bas

ed o

n ve

ndor

inp

ut)

•Re

sid

ual l

evel

s in

soi

ls o

f PC

Bs

<2

pp

m

and

PC

DD

/F

<0.

003

μg/k

g.

•W

ell e

stab

lishe

d t

echn

olog

y th

at

can

be

eng

inee

red

for

spec

ific

ap-

plic

atio

ns o

r ac

qui

red

from

eq

uip

-m

ent

vend

or/c

omm

erci

al s

ervi

ce

pro

vid

ers

•Po

tent

ial t

o p

rovi

de

som

e d

estr

uc-

tion

at e

leva

ted

tem

per

atur

es

used

in in

-situ

or

in-p

ile s

oil t

reat

-m

ent

confi

gur

atio

ns.

Solv

ent

Extr

actio

n/

Was

hing

•PO

Ps c

onta

min

at-

ed s

oils

.•

PCB

con

tam

inat

ed

equi

pm

ent.

•U

S$12

5-22

5/m

3 (so

ils)

•M

ater

ials

han

dlin

g.

•ES

M d

estr

uctio

n of

re

cove

red

PO

Ps (o

ften

in

teg

rate

d w

ith d

estr

uctio

n p

roce

sses

).•

ESM

dis

pos

al o

f tre

ated

m

ater

ial.

Rem

oval

ra

tes

to 9

9%n/

a•

Resi

dua

l lev

els

of P

CB

s or

PO

Ps p

esti-

cid

es in

soi

ls

<50

pp

m.

•Eq

uip

men

t su

rfac

es t

o lo

-ca

l reg

ulat

ory

limits

(10

µg

PCB

/100

cm

2

•W

ell e

stab

lishe

d t

echn

olog

y th

at

can

be

eng

inee

red

for

spec

ific

ap-

plic

atio

ns o

r ac

qui

red

from

eq

uip

-m

ent

vend

or/c

omm

erci

al s

ervi

ce

pro

vid

ers.

28.

Secr

etar

iat

of t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion

(ND

). D

estr

uctio

n an

d D

eco

ntam

inat

ion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r PC

Bs

and

oth

er P

OPs

Was

tes

und

er t

he B

asel

Co

nven

tion.

A T

rain

ing

Man

ual f

or

Haz

ard

ous

Was

te P

roje

ct

Man

ager

. Vo

lum

e C

. Aut

ocl

avin

g. A

vaila

ble

at:

htt

p:/

/co

p10

.bas

el.in

t/Po

rtal

s/4/

Bas

el%

20C

onv

entio

n/d

ocs

/mee

ting

s/sb

c/w

ork

do

c/TM

-C%

20A

nnex

es.p

df

29.

Nav

al F

acili

ties

Eng

inee

ring

Ser

vice

Cen

ter (

1998

). Te

chni

cal R

epor

t on

Ap

plic

atio

n G

uid

e fo

r The

rmal

Des

orp

tion

Syst

em. A

vaila

ble

at:

http

://w

ww

.env

irokl

ean.

com

/file

s/th

erm

al_d

esor

ptio

n_na

vy_r

epor

t.pd

f30

. U

SEPA

(201

0). R

efer

ence

Gui

de

to N

on-

com

bus

tion

Tech

nolo

gie

s fo

r R

emed

iatio

n o

f Per

sist

ent

Org

anic

Po

lluta

nts

in S

oil,

Sec

ond

Ed

itio

n ht

tp:/

/ww

w.c

lu-in

.org

/do

wnl

oad

/rem

ed/P

OPs

_Rep

ort

_Fin

alE

PA_

Sep

t201

0.p

df


References

Africa Stockpiles Programme (2011). Available at: http://www.africastockpiles.net/index.php?page=disposal-technology-options-study-report-2008

Basel Convention (1995). Guidelines on Specifically Engineered Landfills. Available at: http://www.basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/old%20docs/tech-d5.pdf

Basel Convention (2011). Technical Guidelines (multiple). Available at: http://basel.int/meetings/sbc/work-doc/techdocs.html

Environment Canada (2002). Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Materials Regulation. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/documents/participation/inter-prov/sch2.cfm

European Commission (2006). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/eippcb/doc/wi_bref_0806.pdf

European Communities (2003). Council Decision Establishing Criteria and Procedures for the Acceptance of Waste at Landfills. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:011:0027:0049:EN:PDF

European Union (1999). Council Directive on the Landfill of Wastes. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0031:EN:NOT

Food and Agriculture Organization (2009). Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete Patricides. Available at: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agp/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/en/103194/index.html

Global Environment Facility (2005). Final GEF-5 Programming Document. Available at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF_R5_%2025,%20Final%20GEF_5%20Programming%20Document,%20Feb%2012,%202010.pdf

Global Environment Facility (2009). GEF-5 Focal Area Strategies. Available at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF.R.5.Inf_.21.pdf

International HCH and Pesticides Association (2011). Available at: http://www.ihpa.info/resources/library/International Organization for Standardization (2011). Environmental Management. Available at: http://

www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/iso_14000_essentialsScientific and Technical Advisory Panel (2004a). Non-Combustion Technologies for the

Destruction of POPs Stockpiles. Available at: http://www.unep.org/stap/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=eAxB-hLWdZY%3d&tabid=2912&language=en-US

Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (2004b). Review of Emerging, Innovative Technologies for the Destruction and Decontamination of POPs and the Identification of Promising Technologies for Use in Developing Countries. Available at: http://www.unep.org/stap/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BnDATY5E3UE%3D&tabid=3101&language=en-US


Secretariat of the Basel Convention (N.D.a). Destruction and Decontamination Technologies for PCBs and other POPs Wastes under the Basel Convention: A Training Manual for Hazardous Waste Project Managers. Available at: http://basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/TM-A.pdf

Secretariat of the Basel Convention (N.D.b). Destruction and Decontamination Technologies for PCBs and other POPs Wastes under the Basel Convention. A Training Manual for Hazardous Waste Project Managers. Volume C – Annexes. Available at: http://cop10.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/meetings/sbc/workdoc/TM-C%20Annexes.pdf

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001). Text of the Convention is available at: http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/Repository/convention_text/UNEP-POPS-COP-CONVTEXT-FULL.English.PDF

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2009). Fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Available at:

http://chm.pops.int/Convention/COP/hrMeetings/COP4/COP4Documents/tabid/531/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (N.D.). Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and Provisional Guidance on Best Environmental Practices. Available at:

http://chm.pops.int/Implementation/BATBEP/Guidelines/tabid/187/language/en-US/Default.aspxThe World Bank (1999). Safeguard Policies: Environmental Assessment. Available at: http://web.worldbank.

org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAFEPOL/0,,contentMDK:20543912~menuPK:1286357~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:584435,00.html

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998). Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Available at: http://live.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1992). Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Reference Guide to Non-Combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil. Second Edition. Available at: http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/POPs_Report_FinalEPA_Sept2010.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Reference Guide to Non-Combustion Technologies for Remediation of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Soil, Second Edition (2010). Available at: http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/POPs_Report_FinalEPA_Sept2010.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Landfill Disposal Restrictions. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/ldr/

PhOTOGRAPhy

Cover: © iStock, Barrels (Location unknown)Page 3: © iStock/Bart Coenders, (Location unknown)Page 7: © Big Stock, Rusted drums and left on a beach (Location unknown)Page 10: © iStock, Barrels (Location unknown)Page 13: Flickr, © Andrew Stawarz, Industry (Location unknown) Page 15: © The GEF, Pesticide Temporary Storage, PanamaPage 17: © The GEF, Incinerator for Medical waste, ChinaPage 19: Flickr, © JSchneid, Waste (Location unknown) Page 21: Flickr, © UN, BangladeshPage 26: Flickr, © Bert Beckers, Coal Mine (Location unknown)Page 29: © The GEF, ODS Cylinders, CambodiaPage 31: © iStock/Maciej Noskowski, Rotary Kiln (Location unknown)Page 33: © The GEF, PCB Containing Transformers, Panama

www.unep.org/stap